Dear Councilors,

 

We have one on-going action item on our list that has been standing there for some time: leadership and liaison circulated a few ideas in November with the following email (url also in the AI list). Given the absence of feedback on this, there seems to be no appetite to pursue this further. Unless someone expressed a different view by the end of the week we will then close the AI.

 

Thank you.

 

Regards,

Philippe

 

 

Dear Councilors,

 

Leadership would like to start a conversation on a number of items that are related to the role of the GNSO Council Liaison to the GAC as well as the GNSO Council review of the GAC Communiqué. As you may recall, there are a number of recommendations that Jeff put forward in the report he shared with the Council in October (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2021-October/025067.html), which in summary focused on;

 

1. If and how the GNSO should or could be more responsive to the GAC;
2. Interaction of GAC-GNSO bilateral meetings;
3. How to focus more on agreements instead of differences;
4. Include more substantive responses in the GNSO Council review of the GAC Communiqué, and;
5. GNSO to provide its own policy reports / talking points to the GAC prior to ICANN Meetings.

 

Similarly, questions arose during the small team work on the review of the GAC Communiqué about the intent and objective of this exercise. The attached small team assignment form provides some additional detail about the current objective as well as the way the review has been conducted over the last 5+ years. However, as the origin of the review dates back to 2015, it is probably time to review whether it is still fit for purpose, and if not, consider if/how it can be adjusted. In relation to this specific item, leadership would propose that a first step in this process would be to reach out informally to the GNSO appointed Board members to see if this review still serves its original purpose as the concept was developed at the time in response to a suggestion from a Board member. Based on that feedback, the Council can then consider how to proceed.

 

In relation to the other items, Jeff made some specific proposals but we would also like to hear from you whether:

 

1. You agree that further work is needed on items 1-5 above;
2. If yes, identify if/how this can be achieved.

 

To facilitate your input, we’ve created a google doc that you can use to share your thoughts, see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NdMrEL54iqJRvQTZ1qN7JgkrEvvAw5Dm/edit. Once we have sufficient input received, we can schedule this for further discussion during one of our upcoming Council meetings.

 

Best regards,

 

Sébastien, Tomslin & Philippe

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.