Re: [council] Statements made during the GAC-GNSO meeting about the role of ICANN staff in the IGO small group

[Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think Rubens has made a great suggestion here, we should try this.  
And my sympathies to the current scapegoat, in my view that was 
unacceptable.  I hope David Olive has a little chat with somebody.
Stephanie Perrin


On 2016-11-04 09:58, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 2016, at 4:15 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx 
> > <mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> > Dear Councilors,
> > Several statements were made during the GAC-GNSO meeting that just 
> > concluded, concerning my role and participation in the IGO small 
> > group discussions. I would like to let you know that I was only 
> > brought into the discussions after the group was formed, to provide 
> > subject matter expertise and process advice concerning the GNSO and 
> > its work. At no time did I participate other than as a staff 
> > facilitator – and I did not hold myself out as a representative of 
> > the GNSO, or as having any authority to negotiate on behalf of the 
> > GNSO Council or the GNSO community.
> > Mary
> Mary,
>
> While we are at it, I think that a quick training / presentation for 
> GAC regarding Consensus Policies / Picket Fence etc. would be in 
> order. I got the impression today that GAC believes ICANN Board could 
> make contracted parties do anything they wanted thru acceptance of GAC 
> Advice, but they probably need to be informed that only GNSO PDPs 
> followed to the letter of GNSO Operating Procedures have binding effect.
> But good luck finding someone willing to make such training and 
> becoming the next scapegoat... ;-)
>
> Rubens