Hi On Nov 17, 2010, at 3:16 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Bill,
Please see the attached email message that I sent to the Council list. Note that I mentioned this in the 28 October Council meeting and forwarded Liz's paper shortly thereafter.
My bad, didn't resonate
Because of the 15 November deadline for agendas and related documents for Cartagena meetings, we could not wait until the 18 November meeting.
In a subsequent email message I communicated that both Chris and Heather are supportive of the topic and forwarded Liz's paper to their groups.
Detailed agendas and questions are still to be developed. Your suggestions will be helpful in that regard.
Thanks. They seem like rather different conversations, and the list of issues to consider on the procedural question dwarfs previous agendas for the hour. But if people are interested, splitting the time might spice things up a little… Best Bill
-----Original Message----- From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 8:23 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] GNSO-GAC meeting in Cartagena
Hi Chuck,
On Nov 17, 2010, at 1:48 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Bill,
Your suggestions fit nicely into the topic that has already been selected by all three groups (GNSO, GAC & ccNSO)
Thanks, I must have missed this conversation; happily, I'm not alone in that. When did the Council discuss this?
based on the paper that
Liz produced regarding what needs to be done in the future regarding community WGs. It seems natural to me to talk about successes and failures of the Rec6 CWG and the JAS WG as we explore how we facilitate CWGs going forward.
Ok, but I wasn't suggesting a discussion about the procedural aspects of CWGs (although some time on that would be good too), but rather about the substantive issues and proposals involved in these two cases.
Where's the topic specified, do we have a list of discussion questions per previous?
Thanks much,
Bill
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 7:37 AM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] GNSO-GAC meeting in Cartagena
Hi
On tomorrow's call we are to discuss "6.2 Topic(s) for Joint
meetings
with the GAC & ccNSO"
We've just had two intensive and successful group collaborations on questions of particular interest to the GAC, namely Rec. 6/former MAPO and JAS/applicant support. Wouldn't it be helpful to hear GAC perspectives and engage in some dialogue with them on a) the outputs of these groups, and how well they speak to concerns GAC has raised in the past, and b) how those outputs should be dealt with going forward? Given all the efforts expended and the pressing need to settle this stuff to the community's satisfaction, one would think this is the best way we could use the time. Unless of course we'd prefer to talk about categories :-)
Thoughts?
Best,
Bill
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.org ***********************************************************
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.org ***********************************************************
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: October 29, 2010 4:25:26 AM GMT+02:00 To: <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] FW: [gnso-chairs] draft discussion paper on cross-SO/AC working groups
As I briefly mentioned in our meeting earlier today, a possible topic for discussion with the GAC and ccNSO in our joint meetings with them in Cartagena is the topic of procedures for joint SO/AC working groups or community working groups. As you can see by Liz's email below, I requested that Staff prepare a paper listing some of the issues that might need to be considered in that regard. Please review this and share any comments you have and provide any opinions you have about suggesting this topic to the GAC and ccNSO. If there are any objections to suggesting this as a topic for either joint meeting, please let me know by Wednesday of next week. If there are none, I will suggest the topic to Heather and Chris and send the attached discussion document as well.
Thanks to Liz and any other staff members who helped develop the discussion paper.
Chuck
From: owner-gnso-chairs@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-chairs@icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 5:23 PM To: gnso-chairs@icann.org Subject: [gnso-chairs] draft discussion paper on cross-SO/AC working groups
All,
On the last chairs call, Chuck suggested that it might be useful to encourage discussion between the GNSO Council and the ccNSO and GAC (and ALAC...) about the benefits and potential issues associated with cross-SO/AC working groups and whether/how their role might be better defined in the future. To stimulate that discussion, we prepared the attached draft at Chuck's request.
The questions are just suggestions, we have not yet engaged in any internal consultation, and we do think it will be important to consult with the General Counsel's office to solicit their input and guidance.
Please let us know if this is what you had in mind, and if you would like anything further.
Thanks, Liz
<Cross SO AC policy discussion.docx>