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.  

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.

-----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>