May 25, 2010
1:33 p.m.
Yes, also with reference to Rosemary Sinclair's suggestion regarding the DNS marketplace. Regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. Mai 2010 14:15 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; jaime@corp.plugin.com.br; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch; tdavis2@speakeasy.net Cc: stephane.vangelder@indom.com; Rita.Rodin@skadden.com; Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: RE: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels Wolf, Do you suggesting the following two topics for the Board/Council dinner as well as the GAC/GNSO meeting? 1. DAG 4, including morality and public order 2. AoC, including A&T RT and next reviews Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de > Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 2:59 AM > To: jaime@corp.plugin.com.br; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch; > tdavis2@speakeasy.net > Cc: stephane.vangelder@indom.com; Rita.Rodin@skadden.com; > Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au; council@gnso.icann.org > Subject: AW: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels > > > Colleagues, > > I'm personally not in favour of discussing those general "political" > issues in meetings where we as GNSO councillors are officially involved > like bourd/council dinner or GAC/council meeting. Our main focus should > be policy rather than politics development. > > So I think DAG4 and AOC offer enough substance to discuss on > board/council level. > > Regarding the ccNSO/GNSO meeting I support to discuss the DNS- > CERT/security issue with the main target to highlight and optimize the > working structure. > > > > Regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] > Im Auftrag von Jaime Plug In > Gesendet: Montag, 24. Mai 2010 20:56 > An: 'William Drake'; 'Terry L Davis, P.E.' > Cc: '"'Stéphane Van Gelder'"'; 'Rodin Johnston, Rita'; > Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au; council@gnso.icann.org > Betreff: RES: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels > > > I think the issue of the roles of ICANN versus IGF, ITU or other UN > bodies > in the Internet governance is the single most important discussion item > both > with the Board (in the informal or semi-formal meeting) and with GAC > (in the > formal meeting). > > For the rest, I endorse Bill's view of focusing in the first two issues > of > Chuck's original list: > > * DAG 4, including morality and public order (could be a lively > discussion) > * AoC, including A&T RT and next reviews > > Jaime Wagner > > -----Mensagem original----- > De: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] > Em > nome de William Drake > Enviada em: sábado, 22 de maio de 2010 11:11 > Para: Terry L Davis, P.E. > Cc: "'Stéphane Van Gelder'"; 'Rodin Johnston, Rita'; > Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au; council@gnso.icann.org > Assunto: Re: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels > > > Hi Terry, > > I think it'd be more than interesting to talk with boardies about > what's > going on in the larger international political environment. That > includes > the ITU stuff, e.g. the October Plenipotentiary Conference in > Guadalajara, > for which there are various proposals circulating that could directly > impact > ICANN and its nexus. But it goes beyond this, as demonstrated by some > of > the government statements last week in Geneva at the annual UN CSTD > meeting > (including the reactions to Nick Thorne's comments). While I sat with > Rod > at the Nairobi dinner, which was helpful, I still don't have a clear > take on > how the leadership is thinking about and positioning viz. these > developments. And while we tried to start a conversation along these > lines > at the Nairobi Council-GAC meeting, the less than 30 minutes available > were > quickly consumed by general statements from a few OECD governments, > rather > than real engagement. So trying to bridge a little the gap between the > external debate on ICANN a! > nd ICANN's internal discussions could be highly useful, methinks... > > Best, > > Bill > > > > On May 21, 2010, at 11:30 PM, Terry L Davis, P.E. wrote: > > > > > Stephane > > > > Likewise! And I'm probably not favor a formal agenda for discussions > > either. > > > > What might be interesting and could likely be interesting for most > folks > > would be discussions about ICANN and Internet governance directions. > I > > suspect the next few years will be both challenging and pivotal for > the > > Internet as we know it; you could even in toss the recent ITU > initiatives. > > > > Take care > > Terry > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > council@gnso.icann.org] > On > > Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder > > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 12:22 PM > > To: Rodin Johnston, Rita > > Cc: 'Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au'; 'council@gnso.icann.org' > > Subject: Re: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels > > > > > > Good to know that the majority of the Board remains in favour of the > > dinners. > > > > Thanks Rita. > > > > Stéphane > > > > Le 21 mai 2010 à 16:34, Rodin Johnston, Rita a écrit : > > > >> Stephane and all - > >> > >> I very much agree with this sentiment and believe the majority of > the > > board does as well. I'm not sure where this notion began, but bruce > and I > > are in dublin and can discuss with peter. I would not be in favor of > > discontinuing dinner unless a better option for informal discussions > was > > substituted. Thanks > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> > >> To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> > >> Cc: GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org> > >> Sent: Fri May 21 10:09:27 2010 > >> Subject: Re: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels > >> > >> > >> We are talking about the interaction between 2 of ICANN's major > > decision-making bodies. > >> > >> I think it's important to keep sight of the usefulness of getting > the > > people from each body talking to each other. > >> > >> Even when there's no formal agenda, this type of interaction helps > make > > organisations work. > >> > >> Yes we can keep it formal, but when it's a social event it's often > easier > > for people to meet and get to know each other. That then translates > into > > real benefits for the organisation when it comes to formal work > sessions. > >> > >> As a new councillor, I found the first Board dinner I attended > helped > take > > away a lot of the awe and stress I felt at both learning the Council > and > > working with the Board. From informal conversations with Board > members, I > > found them to be much more approachable and in tune with the everyday > > problems ICANN faces than I had thought. I would never have gotten > that in > a > > more formal setting. > >> > >> I think our joint dinner are an investment we all make to help oil > the > > internal workings of the organisation. > >> > >> Stéphane > >> > >> Le 21 mai 2010 à 15:11, Bruce Tonkin a écrit : > >> > >>> > >>> Hello All, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>> I think the approach you suggest for the Board dinner is > excellent. > >>> To me, these dinners are crucial for us and the opportunity for > >>> interaction with Board members they bring. I would hate to see them > >>> disappear, but would like to understand why some on the Board feel > they > >>> should go. > >>> > >>> > >>> Well here are some issues that get raised: > >>> > >>> - the dinners are at the end of a long day of workshops/meetings - > so > >>> some members are too tired to give important matters appropriate > >>> attention > >>> > >>> - it is not always clear what the objective is - a general > discussion > >>> about topics, a social event, discussion about a specific issues > that > >>> the Board will be making a decision on that week? > >>> > >>> - if the process is working properly - the Board will simply be > >>> endorsing the recommendations from the Council that have consensus > >>> support and should not be getting into the detail of particular > policy > >>> matters. If there is disagreement amongst the parties in the GNSO > - the > >>> GNSO should work it out together - not try to get the Board to take > >>> sides. > >>> > >>> There are some that would prefer a more formal meeting - not > >>> aligned with a breakfast/lunch or dinner - where there are > materials > >>> provided in advance and the Board members can ask questions about > the > >>> particular issue. > >>> > >>> > >>> Personally I think a mixture of formal and informal can work. e.g > A > >>> period of time for a structured discussion with documents provided > in > >>> advance, and the ability for the Board to ask questions on the > >>> documents. An informal eating occasion can then follow that is > perhaps > >>> optional for the participants to attend to get a better > understanding of > >>> the issues. This structure used to work quite well when we were > doing > >>> the new gTLD policy development - the days were spent on policy > >>> discussions, and the dinners were an opportunity to break down some > >>> barriers in the discussions with no formal agenda, that often led > to > >>> better results the following day. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Bruce Tonkin > >>> > >>> > > > > >