Good day, all.
From a procedural perspective, the ccNSO Council meeting was revelatory with regard to a vote it is taking on a PDP. The voting by email has been open for some time now and still, on the call today, there was a plea for members to weigh in. I thought it was in marked contrast to the way we often climb over broken glass to cast votes. It made me think of the age old question of nature vs. nurture.
As for the meeting, it was clear that the ccNSO Council is fixed on better understanding the reputational research conducted for ICANN by Echo. In fact, the Council has invited Echo to make a presentation in Durban and even though the consultant has committed to remote participation, they will continued to be petitioned to be on-site. If this is the case, perhaps we might want more than just your single liaison to take in the presentation. There was silent assent to sending to the GNSO Council a response to Jonathan's question about cross-community working groups. I have attached a copy of the draft (typos and all) so that you can get an early sense of the issues in the way of agreement. Most, I think, can be solved by a firm commitment to a single charter that respects all groups' rules and clarity on when CWGs are to be empaneled. As you know Petter and I have been asked to help design the agenda for the joint ccNSO Council/GNSO Council meeting in Durban. Right now the likely items are to be picked from among these: + A discussion of the new draft of the ICANN budget + A discussion of the ATRT + A look at the implications of the reputational studies + Identifying technical "best practices" (e.g., dispute resolution, domain name locking and transfer and WhoIs management) Finally, the Durban meeting is the last for Lesley Cowley as chair of the ccNSO Council. She will remain a member, but her work load has caused her to give up the leadership post. Should be mark her service in some manner at the lunch meeting? Cheers, Berard