Forgive the short message; I’m in a (non-ICANN 😉) meeting.

I think we need to remember, and point out, how careful we were to keep this group small and agile & avoid the establishment of a “mirror Council”. The idea is that the group would be able to organise and draw on SMEs in AS as appropriate, as outlined in the SubPro Report. So can we not explain that to the GAC, and tell them that we will of course be turning to relevant GAC members as those SMEs but that this is just the umbrella group over-seeing that operational work before it is returned to Council for any policy development as appropriate?

Thanks,

Marie

From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman via council
Sent: Wednesday, 28 September 2022 11:53
To: council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: [council] Fwd: Clarification Question on the GAC Communique (SubPro)

Dear Council,

Please find below the response from the GAC point of contact.   The communique does indeed ask for more than just having an observer, but for the ability to have additional participants in the group, but also recognizing the need for a closed group.

I know there is a small group that is reviewing this, but I will leave it to the Council to decide if it wants to discuss this as a whole.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey J. Neuman

GNSO Liaison to GAC

---

From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 1:15 AM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>
Cc: manal@tra.gov.eg <manal@tra.gov.eg>; sebastien@registry.godaddy <sebastien@registry.godaddy>
Subject: AW: Clarification Question on the GAC Communique (SubPro)

Dear Jeff

Thanks very much for your question. IMO the GAC Communique calls for something more than just "observer" status beyond the one member slot accorded to the GAC (as to other ACs). At the same time I feel the GAC is not asking the GNSO to completely get rid of a closed approach for the membership of the GGP WG, but perhaps allowing for 3 GAC Members or perhaps 2 Members and 2 Alternates - in order to allow for full participation of those in the GAC who have shown interest in having an active role.

I have informally exchanged on this with Manal, and she’ll follow-up on Philippe‘s letter calling for volunteers shortly, making reference to the GAC Communique and our reading of it.

hope this helps for the time being

kindly

jorge

________________________________

Von: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>
Datum: 26. September 2022 um 23:40:13 MESZ
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>
Cc: Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg>, Sebastien@registry.godaddy <sebastien@registry.godaddy>
Betreff: Clarification Question on the GAC Communique (SubPro)


Dear Jorge,

In the GAC Communique, it states:

“Stressing the need to promote diversity and a balanced geographical engagement among stakeholders, the GAC reaffirmed its continued interest in the improvement of Applicant Support for the next round of New gTLDs, noting the importance of active GAC participation in the upcoming GGP. In this regard, the GAC calls on the GNSO Council to allow broader participation from interested GAC participants, as well as other members of the community, beyond the single member per Advisory Committee presently envisioned by the call for volunteers communicated to the GAC.”

As you may be aware, all members of the community, including the GAC, are invited to be observers to the GGP group which will provide them with read only access to the mailing list and the ability to join all group calls in listen-only mode.

Is the Communique asking the GNSO to open the GGP group up to all community members to be participants and not just observers?  Or does the “observer” status for all members of the community satisfy the GAC’s request?

Sincerely,

Jeff Neuman
GNSO Liaison to GAC



[cid:image001.png@01D8D1CE.FC3B1BF0]

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Founder & CEO
JJN Solutions, LLC
p: +1.202.549.5079
E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>
http://jjnsolutions.com