Hmm ... isn't this one very good reason why we ought to have GNSO-GAC
Thanks Joy. We have decided to form a small group of Councilors to work on these issues. I have volunteered to lead the up. We did ask the GAC several times if they wanted to work with us in some form of group, but they have declined our invitation. Therefore, after the letter is sent, we will try to work these issues on our own in a relatively quick time frame and after approval from the Council, we will share our thoughts with the GAC. They seem to prefer this course of action. We have also asked for volunteers and Glen has volunteered to set up a mailing list. If you would like to volunteer for this group, please let Glen know. Thanks again. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Joy Liddicoat Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 8:29 PM To: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Informal conversation Hi - my apologies for missing this meeting - it was 12am onwards here. Thanks for your work on this Stephane and Mary's idea of some mechanism(s) to help build relationships is a good one - whether as observer or liaison point. Or perhaps a standing item on the GNSO agenda could be: GAC - with a GAC rep/Chair given the opportunity to attend on specific topics of GNSO/GAC working methods? A practical suggestion on the IOC Red Cross matter: GAC makes a fair point on the intra-GAC issues (and, as Thomas says, GNSO councillors also face workload challenges). Could we suggest a small GNSO GAC working group on this specific issue? The group could take forward some of the issues raised and, perhaps, work together to suggest options/pathways forward for the two groups to consider? Joy -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, 28 October 2011 5:49 a.m. To: Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Informal conversation Good point Mary, I forgot the topic of a liaison. They say they can't do that, but actually suggest the reverse, i.e. that we send them a liaison! An interesting suggestion. Stéphane Le 27 oct. 2011 à 16:39, <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> a écrit : liaisons?
Also, while I understand the difficulty the GAC may have with nit having
one or two people represent the GAC formally, should we consider inviting them to appoint an observer or liaison to the task force or WG that Jeff is leading?
Thanks for the prompt action and reporting back, Stéphane.
Cheers Mary
"Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com>"
<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> wrote:
All,
As we discussed during today's wrap-up, I had an informal conversation
with the GAC.
I passed along the message that there was disappointment at the GAC's
apparent lack of desire for a common effort on the IOC and RC names. The answer was that the GAC remains extremely challenged when it comes to participating in joint efforts of this kind. There are workload issues first and foremost for government reps, but also because of the unique nature of the GAC it is difficult for any GAC member to participate effectively.
The point was also made to me that we tend to assume that when we put
something out, either on our mailing list or our website, that is enough for the GAC to be aware of it. I was told that it is not so, and that there is no substitute for direct communication. So in that regard, it sounds like our discussions in today's wrap-up about being seen to be more constructive and more proactive are spot on.
With that in mind, I would suggest that we perhaps want to send the draft
letter on the IOC and RC names anyway. The idea being to show that we have done some thinking about this issue as well (someone made that point during the wrap-up, I forget who so apologies).
Also, I was told that unless we write to the GAC to tell them about the
announcement made by ICANN and the registrars and published on the GNSO mailing list, they don't know about it. As this is a registrar specific issue, it is perhaps not for the GNSO as a whole to mention. But it is perhaps worth thinking about.
The main takeaway I got from the conversation is that we should look to
improve the way we communicate with the outside world (this is not something I was told, it is my own conclusion).
Hope this is helpful.
Get home safe everyone. Enjoyed working with you this week.
Stéphane