ccNSO Council meeting report
All, The ccNSO Council meeting today (4 a.m. Pacific!) covered issues related to Internet Governance and cross-community working groups as well as an operational discussion that bears on the GNSO Council. Here is a recap; 1. As you might imagine, the members of the ccNSO are quite focused on the global debate over Internet governance. In order to keep the cc's involved and up-to-date, the Council has appointed four liaisons to the four on-going Internet governance initiatives. + Byron Holland (.ca and chair of the ccNSO Council) is the liaison to the Strategy Panel on Internet Governance. He noted that there will be three meetings of the Panel prior to the Brazil chatauqua. He described it as "loosely organized" and not yet fully formed in advance of the first meeting next week in London. + Carolina Aguerre, general manager of LACTLD is the liaison to the group focused on supportinbg ICANN's role in that Brazil meeting. + Keith Davidson of .nz is the liaison to cross-community working group that sprang up as a surprise in Buenos Aires. + Mathieu Credou of Afnic is the link to /1net. Note that the ccNSO has created an Internet governance mailing list. 2. The ccNSO Council work on the use of country names as TLDs presents the possibility of a cross-community working group. It is the Council's intention to distribute to other ASs and SOs a strawman of the work such a ccwg would undertake. The goal is to empanel the working group by the time of the ICANN meeting in Singapore. 3. The Council is considering a change in its quorum and voting rules. They live in a much more homogenous world than do we and so are looking at making a successful vote a majority of those who cast them, without regard to why someone would abstain. 4. As the GNSO Council liaison to the ccNSO Council, I have already suggested, because we meet at the same times during the three international meetings, that someone just off the Council be asked to fill the role. This brings up a question of funding. I think the position should be funded and a specific set of responsibilities attached. I am just making this up as I go along. That is it for this report. Cheers, Berard
On 11 Dec 2013, at 7:38 am, john@crediblecontext.com wrote:
4. As the GNSO Council liaison to the ccNSO Council, I have already suggested, because we meet at the same times during the three international meetings, that someone just off the Council be asked to fill the role. This brings up a question of funding. I think the position should be funded and a specific set of responsibilities attached. I am just making this up as I go along.
Regardless, it seems a valuable suggestion. We have the same issue with the GAC - the major SOs and ACs are all more or less so busy that they consume almost all the time available at an ICANN meeting, making it pretty much impossible to effectively monitor one if you are an active participant in another. Liaisons are seeming a more valuable idea with each meeting, and it seem a practical necessity that they are not full serving members of the origin group in order to have the time to fully monitor the group they are outreaching to. And of course funding is important, as the ability to attend physical meetings is essential for the role. Cheers David
Hi John, Many thanks for this summary and indeed for getting up at 0400 to be able to provide it to us. I agree with your suggestion, and David's support, for a funded liaison person who can attend ccNSO and- David's suggestion - GAC meetings that run at the same time as ours. It could be a useful first step to figuring out how to implement the ATRT2 recommendation that we somehow get the GAC more active in GNSO PDPs. I wonder how we would go about discussing that in more detail in the GNSO and, if appropriate, getting the idea into the works? That said, I personally think you're doing a terrific job keeping us informed about cc-world and it is really useful to get these updates from you, with your day to day knowledge of GNSO Council issues, e.g. the cross community working group. You are in danger of making yourself indispensable! Maria On 11 December 2013 02:05, David Cake <dave@difference.com.au> wrote:
4. As the GNSO Council liaison to the ccNSO Council, I have already suggested, because we meet at the same times during the three international meetings, that someone just off the Council be asked to fill the role. This brings up a question of funding. I think the position should be funded and a specific set of responsibilities attached. I am just making
On 11 Dec 2013, at 7:38 am, john@crediblecontext.com wrote: this up as I go along.
Regardless, it seems a valuable suggestion. We have the same issue with the GAC - the major SOs and ACs are all more or less so busy that they consume almost all the time available at an ICANN meeting, making it pretty much impossible to effectively monitor one if you are an active participant in another. Liaisons are seeming a more valuable idea with each meeting, and it seem a practical necessity that they are not full serving members of the origin group in order to have the time to fully monitor the group they are outreaching to. And of course funding is important, as the ability to attend physical meetings is essential for the role.
Cheers
David
The idea to fund a ccNSO liaison from among the GNSO Councillors leaving their seat has been floated but little discussed. Perhaps we ought to put it on the weekend agenda for Singapore Berard Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 11, 2013, at 8:33 AM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi John,
Many thanks for this summary and indeed for getting up at 0400 to be able to provide it to us.
I agree with your suggestion, and David's support, for a funded liaison person who can attend ccNSO and- David's suggestion - GAC meetings that run at the same time as ours. It could be a useful first step to figuring out how to implement the ATRT2 recommendation that we somehow get the GAC more active in GNSO PDPs.
I wonder how we would go about discussing that in more detail in the GNSO and, if appropriate, getting the idea into the works?
That said, I personally think you're doing a terrific job keeping us informed about cc-world and it is really useful to get these updates from you, with your day to day knowledge of GNSO Council issues, e.g. the cross community working group. You are in danger of making yourself indispensable!
Maria
On 11 December 2013 02:05, David Cake <dave@difference.com.au> wrote:
On 11 Dec 2013, at 7:38 am, john@crediblecontext.com wrote:
4. As the GNSO Council liaison to the ccNSO Council, I have already suggested, because we meet at the same times during the three international meetings, that someone just off the Council be asked to fill the role. This brings up a question of funding. I think the position should be funded and a specific set of responsibilities attached. I am just making this up as I go along.
Regardless, it seems a valuable suggestion. We have the same issue with the GAC - the major SOs and ACs are all more or less so busy that they consume almost all the time available at an ICANN meeting, making it pretty much impossible to effectively monitor one if you are an active participant in another. Liaisons are seeming a more valuable idea with each meeting, and it seem a practical necessity that they are not full serving members of the origin group in order to have the time to fully monitor the group they are outreaching to. And of course funding is important, as the ability to attend physical meetings is essential for the role.
Cheers
David
Thanks John, Two questions for you and the Council: 1. Could such a position (liaison) be served by a single individual to both GAC & ccNSO? 2. The GNSO groups seem to be generally organising to place representatives / liaisons into the CCWG and other internet Governance initiatives. The GNSO Council has agreed (in BA) to James Bladel and Jennifer Wolfe being our “liaisons” to the Multi-stakeholder Innovation Panel initiative. Are there any other such initiatives that the Council should be actively monitoring and contributing to via a “liaison” of sorts? Jonathan From: John Berard [mailto:johnberard@aol.com] Sent: 11 December 2013 17:03 To: Maria Farrell Cc: David Cake; John Berard; Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] ccNSO Council meeting report The idea to fund a ccNSO liaison from among the GNSO Councillors leaving their seat has been floated but little discussed. Perhaps we ought to put it on the weekend agenda for Singapore Berard Sent from my iPhone On Dec 11, 2013, at 8:33 AM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com> wrote: Hi John, Many thanks for this summary and indeed for getting up at 0400 to be able to provide it to us. I agree with your suggestion, and David's support, for a funded liaison person who can attend ccNSO and- David's suggestion - GAC meetings that run at the same time as ours. It could be a useful first step to figuring out how to implement the ATRT2 recommendation that we somehow get the GAC more active in GNSO PDPs. I wonder how we would go about discussing that in more detail in the GNSO and, if appropriate, getting the idea into the works? That said, I personally think you're doing a terrific job keeping us informed about cc-world and it is really useful to get these updates from you, with your day to day knowledge of GNSO Council issues, e.g. the cross community working group. You are in danger of making yourself indispensable! Maria On 11 December 2013 02:05, David Cake <dave@difference.com.au> wrote: On 11 Dec 2013, at 7:38 am, john@crediblecontext.com wrote:
4. As the GNSO Council liaison to the ccNSO Council, I have already suggested, because we meet at the same times during the three international meetings, that someone just off the Council be asked to fill the role. This brings up a question of funding. I think the position should be funded and a specific set of responsibilities attached. I am just making this up as I go along.
Regardless, it seems a valuable suggestion. We have the same issue with the GAC - the major SOs and ACs are all more or less so busy that they consume almost all the time available at an ICANN meeting, making it pretty much impossible to effectively monitor one if you are an active participant in another. Liaisons are seeming a more valuable idea with each meeting, and it seem a practical necessity that they are not full serving members of the origin group in order to have the time to fully monitor the group they are outreaching to. And of course funding is important, as the ability to attend physical meetings is essential for the role. Cheers David
With regard to ‘a single individual to both GAC & ccNSO’, for in-person ICANN public meetings, the ccNSO meetings conflict with GAC meetings just as do the GNSO meetings. Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:40 AM To: 'John Berard'; 'Maria Farrell' Cc: 'David Cake'; 'John Berard'; 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] ccNSO Council meeting report Thanks John, Two questions for you and the Council: 1. Could such a position (liaison) be served by a single individual to both GAC & ccNSO? 2. The GNSO groups seem to be generally organising to place representatives / liaisons into the CCWG and other internet Governance initiatives. The GNSO Council has agreed (in BA) to James Bladel and Jennifer Wolfe being our “liaisons” to the Multi-stakeholder Innovation Panel initiative. Are there any other such initiatives that the Council should be actively monitoring and contributing to via a “liaison” of sorts? Jonathan From: John Berard [mailto:johnberard@aol.com]<mailto:[mailto:johnberard@aol.com]> Sent: 11 December 2013 17:03 To: Maria Farrell Cc: David Cake; John Berard; Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] ccNSO Council meeting report The idea to fund a ccNSO liaison from among the GNSO Councillors leaving their seat has been floated but little discussed. Perhaps we ought to put it on the weekend agenda for Singapore Berard Sent from my iPhone On Dec 11, 2013, at 8:33 AM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com<mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi John, Many thanks for this summary and indeed for getting up at 0400 to be able to provide it to us. I agree with your suggestion, and David's support, for a funded liaison person who can attend ccNSO and- David's suggestion - GAC meetings that run at the same time as ours. It could be a useful first step to figuring out how to implement the ATRT2 recommendation that we somehow get the GAC more active in GNSO PDPs. I wonder how we would go about discussing that in more detail in the GNSO and, if appropriate, getting the idea into the works? That said, I personally think you're doing a terrific job keeping us informed about cc-world and it is really useful to get these updates from you, with your day to day knowledge of GNSO Council issues, e.g. the cross community working group. You are in danger of making yourself indispensable! Maria On 11 December 2013 02:05, David Cake <dave@difference.com.au<mailto:dave@difference.com.au>> wrote: On 11 Dec 2013, at 7:38 am, john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> wrote:
4. As the GNSO Council liaison to the ccNSO Council, I have already suggested, because we meet at the same times during the three international meetings, that someone just off the Council be asked to fill the role. This brings up a question of funding. I think the position should be funded and a specific set of responsibilities attached. I am just making this up as I go along. Regardless, it seems a valuable suggestion. We have the same issue with the GAC - the major SOs and ACs are all more or less so busy that they consume almost all the time available at an ICANN meeting, making it pretty much impossible to effectively monitor one if you are an active participant in another. Liaisons are seeming a more valuable idea with each meeting, and it seem a practical necessity that they are not full serving members of the origin group in order to have the time to fully monitor the group they are outreaching to. And of course funding is important, as the ability to attend physical meetings is essential for the role.
Cheers David
I think it would be a good idea to have someone reliable and knowledge to report back and the ex councilor idea seems also a good one. I second to put this proposal for discussion at the weekend in Singapore. Klaus On 12/11/2013 6:03 PM, John Berard wrote:
The idea to fund a ccNSO liaison from among the GNSO Councillors leaving their seat has been floated but little discussed. Perhaps we ought to put it on the weekend agenda for Singapore
Berard
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 11, 2013, at 8:33 AM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@gmail.com <mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi John,
Many thanks for this summary and indeed for getting up at 0400 to be able to provide it to us.
I agree with your suggestion, and David's support, for a funded liaison person who can attend ccNSO and- David's suggestion - GAC meetings that run at the same time as ours. It could be a useful first step to figuring out how to implement the ATRT2 recommendation that we somehow get the GAC more active in GNSO PDPs.
I wonder how we would go about discussing that in more detail in the GNSO and, if appropriate, getting the idea into the works?
That said, I personally think you're doing a terrific job keeping us informed about cc-world and it is really useful to get these updates from you, with your day to day knowledge of GNSO Council issues, e.g. the cross community working group. You are in danger of making yourself indispensable!
Maria
On 11 December 2013 02:05, David Cake <dave@difference.com.au <mailto:dave@difference.com.au>> wrote:
On 11 Dec 2013, at 7:38 am, john@crediblecontext.com <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> wrote: > 4. As the GNSO Council liaison to the ccNSO Council, I have already suggested, because we meet at the same times during the three international meetings, that someone just off the Council be asked to fill the role. This brings up a question of funding. I think the position should be funded and a specific set of responsibilities attached. I am just making this up as I go along.
Regardless, it seems a valuable suggestion. We have the same issue with the GAC - the major SOs and ACs are all more or less so busy that they consume almost all the time available at an ICANN meeting, making it pretty much impossible to effectively monitor one if you are an active participant in another. Liaisons are seeming a more valuable idea with each meeting, and it seem a practical necessity that they are not full serving members of the origin group in order to have the time to fully monitor the group they are outreaching to. And of course funding is important, as the ability to attend physical meetings is essential for the role.
Cheers
David
participants (7)
-
David Cake -
Gomes, Chuck -
John Berard -
john＠crediblecontext.com -
Jonathan Robinson -
Klaus Stoll -
Maria Farrell