Re: [council] FW: GNSO Meeting with the Board : Topics

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Councilors –

Thank you for your exchange of views and support for Donna’s suggested topics.  
If there are no objections or additional topics, I will ask Glen to submit 
these to Board support staff.

Thanks—

J.

On 10/27/16, 10:51 , "owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Paul McGrady" 
<owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

    
    Personal View:
    
    I agree with Donna.  We want to avoid the many unnecessary surprises and 
lengthy delays caused by the surprises that we experienced in Round 1 by GAC 
advice arriving well after implementation began.  ICANN's herky jerky 
implementation of Round 1 made it a laughingstock in the business community and 
it needs to rebuild its image as a trusted business partner.  Repeating the 
phenomenon of surprise GAC advice after applications have been filed will undo 
much of the good work of the last several years and I think the Board should 
aggressively manage that risk by bringing the GAC to the table early and 
keeping them at the table throughout the SubPro PDP.
    
    Best,
    Paul
    
    
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Austin, Donna
    Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 9:30 AM
    To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 'GNSO Council List' 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    Subject: RE: [council] FW: GNSO Meeting with the Board : Topics 
    
    
    Thanks Bruce
    
    It was the subsequent procedures on new gTLDs PDP that I had in mind where 
I believe it would be beneficial to have structured discussions to either 
respond to, or perhaps even avoid, the situation where GAC advice is at odds 
with the PDP recommendations. The PDP WG is making progress on a number of 
topics and it may be possible to have trilateral sessions before finalization 
of the PDP recommendations and GAC advice, or vice versa. If we don't have the 
opportunity for such discussion, I fear there will be unnecessary and 
potentially lengthy delays.
    
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
    Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 2:02 AM
    To: 'GNSO Council List' <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    Subject: RE: [council] FW: GNSO Meeting with the Board : Topics 
    
    
    Hello Donna.
    
    
    >>  On the second point, I really think we would benefit from organized and 
sometimes moderated trilateral discussions, rather than the Board and GAC/ the 
Council and the Board/ and the GAC and the Council having separate discussions 
on the same subject. The continuous back and forth on the IGO acronym and Red 
Cross issues are a case in point. Perhaps this could have been circumvented if 
there had been an opportunity for open communication across the three groups. 
    
    I completely agree the current – GAC-Board, GNSO-Board, GNSO-GAC 
combination of separate meetings sometimes spread over multiple ICANN meetings 
(ie Board might discuss a topic with GNSO in one public meeting, and discuss 
the same topic with GAC at a different public meeting)  is dysfunctional.    I 
would much prefer a structured GAC-GNSO-Board meeting on topics related to 
gTLDs, where the GAC has provided advice.
    
    
    Regards,
    Bruce Tonkin