Thanks for the helpful summary, Chuck. FWIW (sorry for jumping in late - I took some family time off (yes, complete with email withdrawal symptoms!!!!) this past week and am catching up) here are my brief thoughts: 1. I support the first 3 topics listed for the GAC/GNSO meeting (esp. topics 1 (& 2 (DAG v4 & AoC); 2. I support topics 3 & 4 (i.e. Internet governance & DAG v4) for the Board dinner; and 3. I support DNS-CERT as the main topic for the ccNSO meeting. On the relevance/usefulness of having dinner with the Board, I pretty much agree with much of what others have said. Specifically, I think it's useful (esp. for newer Councillors) to have an occasion to interact with the Board and senior ICANN staff OTHER than around a conference table; I also agree with Bruce, Tim and others that a more mixed approach (i.e. a structured discussion followed by eating; alternatively, as Chuck suggested, different topics at different tables tailored to those seated there) may help focus the discussions while allowing for more relaxed interaction to follow. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong@piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> To:<council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 5/27/2010 5:46 PM Subject: [council] Topics for Joint Meetings in Brussels <<Joint GNSO Meeting Agenda Topics for Brussels.docx>> <<Survey for Board meeting with GNSO in Brussels.docx>> The first attachment above is a summary I created of the suggested topics, names of Councilors who expressed support or opposition for them and excerpts of Councilor comments for the three Council joint meetings scheduled for Brussels. I tried to be thorough and complete in creating this but wouldn’t be surprised if I missed some or incorrectly showed support. Please communicate any errors you find. My next step recommendations for each meeting are as follows. GAC/GNSO meeting Recognizing that it will be very unlikely that we can cover all three topics in one hour, I suggest that I send a message to Janis asking him to prioritize the following three topics from his point of view: · DAG 4, including morality and public order · AoC, including A&T RT and next reviews · Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Once we get a response from Janis, we solicit Council volunteers to prepare 1-2 minute statements on one or more of the topics that would be communicated as individual or SG/Constituency statements in the meeting. Statements may include questions for the GAC. Board/Staff/GNSO dinner meeting We develop a survey that Bruce Tonkin may use to solicit individual Board preferences regarding topics they would like to discuss with Councilors in Brussels, noting 1st, 2nd & 3rd choices. I took a first stab at a survey that is contained in the second attachment to this message. Once we get the feedback from Bruce, we will try to assign seating by topic(s) at each table. ccNSO/GNSO meeting I will send a message to Chris Disspain saying that the GNSO Council supports the topic of the DNS-CERT be the main topic of discussion in the joint ccNSO/GNSO meeting in Brussels with the understanding that the ccNSO may add other topics if desired and that I also proposed a small list of questions in that regard to facilitate discussion. For starters, I suggest the following questions: 1. What are the biggest concerns of ICANN DNS-CERT activities to date? a. ccNSO participants b. GNSO participants 2. How could the ICANN-DNS CERT activities be improved going forward? a. ccNSO participants b. GNSO participants 3. In what ways could the ccNSO and GNSO work together in this area? a. ccNSO participants b. GNSO participants Please feel free to provide feedback on any of the above not later than one week from today, Thursday, 3 June. Using that feedback I will take the next steps as indicated above or as modified per the feedback received. Thanks, Chuck Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An Innovative Paternership