I think it would be a good idea to have someone reliable and knowledge to report back and the ex councilor idea seems also a good one. I second to put this proposal for discussion at the weekend in Singapore. Klaus On 12/11/2013 6:03 PM, John Berard wrote:
The idea to fund a ccNSO liaison from among the GNSO Councillors leaving their seat has been floated but little discussed. Perhaps we ought to put it on the weekend agenda for Singapore
Berard
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 11, 2013, at 8:33 AM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com <mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi John,
Many thanks for this summary and indeed for getting up at 0400 to be able to provide it to us.
I agree with your suggestion, and David's support, for a funded liaison person who can attend ccNSO and- David's suggestion - GAC meetings that run at the same time as ours. It could be a useful first step to figuring out how to implement the ATRT2 recommendation that we somehow get the GAC more active in GNSO PDPs.
I wonder how we would go about discussing that in more detail in the GNSO and, if appropriate, getting the idea into the works?
That said, I personally think you're doing a terrific job keeping us informed about cc-world and it is really useful to get these updates from you, with your day to day knowledge of GNSO Council issues, e.g. the cross community working group. You are in danger of making yourself indispensable!
Maria
On 11 December 2013 02:05, David Cake <dave@difference.com.au <mailto:dave@difference.com.au>> wrote:
On 11 Dec 2013, at 7:38 am, john@crediblecontext.com <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> wrote: > 4. As the GNSO Council liaison to the ccNSO Council, I have already suggested, because we meet at the same times during the three international meetings, that someone just off the Council be asked to fill the role. This brings up a question of funding. I think the position should be funded and a specific set of responsibilities attached. I am just making this up as I go along.
Regardless, it seems a valuable suggestion. We have the same issue with the GAC - the major SOs and ACs are all more or less so busy that they consume almost all the time available at an ICANN meeting, making it pretty much impossible to effectively monitor one if you are an active participant in another. Liaisons are seeming a more valuable idea with each meeting, and it seem a practical necessity that they are not full serving members of the origin group in order to have the time to fully monitor the group they are outreaching to. And of course funding is important, as the ability to attend physical meetings is essential for the role.
Cheers
David