May 25, 2010
5:15 p.m.
Hello, I endorse what Bill suggested about ICANN and IG in general regarding the relations with ITU etc . Regards Rafik 2010/5/25 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> > > 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 > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >