On 06/04/13 17:43, "Mason Cole" <mcole@5x5com.com> wrote:
Meeting with Fadi:
- His ongoing confidence in new gTLD execution - IDN variants - Specificity in roll-out timeline
GAC - Understands/supports multistakeholder model. Doesn't necessarily do well inside that model. Need to be creative about how we engage them. - Would be useful to understand what GAC issues are. Would be helpful to provide them with forward look on council activity so they're alerted in advance and can plan. - Get direct input from GAC on issues they're interested in. - Perhaps assign ICANN staff person as liaison between GAC-GNSO. - Maybe provide GAC with instruction on opportunities and windows for input. Mistake to involve them in WGs. - Make GAC a resource. WGs should try to identify issues that may be of interest to the GAC and give them a chance to contribute. - Realize that governments are meeting and talking to other governments. Their interest is showing capitals they are effective over ICANN. Flaw in ICANN structure. Going to have to hit them over the head with realities of interaction problems. - Issue of full council's relationship with GAC vs. individual members' various relationships. - Establish mutual GNSO-GAC liaisons; one from each house.
Board and CEO - Have free-flow session without a giant agenda. Themes vs. individual issues. - Role and function of GNSO council in multi-stakeholder model (e.g., board approaches council for policy advice, timelines too short... = ignoring process) - Intentional bypassing of bottom-up process - Policy input vs. policy advice - Emerging trends we want to reflect to the board - Council restructure called for the board to accept broader public comment from those impacted by policy; most input the board receives is from finite population of the GNSO. - Public interest at ICANN - Engagement and outreach, new constituencies
Sent from my iPad