RE: [council] Re: [offlist] Status/report from ACSO meeting
Why couldn't we proceed without the GAC? It's not that we don't want their participation, we do. But this is a joint effort and no one AC or SO should try to control what's discussed, or be allowed to. I agree that there is no point in spending time discussing the demand issue. I don't particularly like what Stephane is suggesting either (with all due respect). It seems a bit self-serving and not of much interest to the broader community, especially with all the other important issues that could be discussed. Considering what's been suggested so far, I would prefer Kristina's suggestion - malicious conduct. But my suggestion is that the topic be Accountability. The Board has posted suggestions that I think fall short, and based on comments submitted regarding IIC and the NOI on the JPA I believe many if not most of the community believe they fall short regardless of where they are on whether or not the JPA should be extended. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Re: [offlist] Status/report from ACSO meeting From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Date: Wed, September 02, 2009 4:49 am To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>, Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Avri, Chuck, Agree with the both of you that this is not a particular useful topic to have at the ACSO meeting as it will just be a slugging match between the gTLD pros and cons. I don't see who would be able to give factual information on consumer demand for new gTLDs, so it would just be everyone voicing their opinion. That's exactly what has been happening for the last couple of years anyway so in what way would such a session be productive? Plus I have to say I find the GAC's attitude surprising ("either run our topic or we're not coming!"). I felt at the previous two ACSO sessions they were very supportive of the whole concept and very open about it. Any idea why the apparent change of attitude? As for possible topic choices, this session being an opportunity for a get-together between the various committees and organisations that make up ICANN and that ensure that ICANN can actually function, I would think it would be more useful to have folks discuss ways to improve the ICANN, ACs and SOs processes. As these are brainstorming sessions, I think we can be quite daring in our choices of topics. How about something like: "with volunteer burnout becoming a pressing problem, should ICANN look into remuneration possibilities for AC and SO council and excom members?" I'm sure most people would be against this (I certainly am), but it would give people an opportunity to explain why and what their take on being involved in the ICANN process is. Just an idea... Stéphane Le 02/09/09 00:21, « Avri Doria » <avri@acm.org> a écrit :
Hi,
while not the same words, pretty much what i said. but i promised to report it in a neutral manner.
GAC is being rather insistent. they say it covers all the topics they think are interesting.
the pretty much refused (not in so few words) to hold the meeting on a Monday unless they felt the topic was one of interest to them.
i figured the GNSO was fine with not having the meeting at all and said so. but also said that the GNSO was not proposing that the meeting be cancelled.
a.
On 2 Sep 2009, at 00:14, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Should be an interesting and diverse debate but it will come down to one side's opinions versus the other's. Isn't that basically where we started in the New gTLD PDP process?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 6:04 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Status/report from ACSO meeting
Hi,
Just got out of a ACSO meeting where the topic of the meeting for Seoul was discussed.
The GAC has suggested that the Seoul ACSO meeting focus on a topic from their letter to the Board Chair of 18 Aug 09. http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-dengate-thrush -18aug09-en.pdf
Specially based on the following sentence:
"The GAC remains concerned that the threshold question has not been answered whether the introduction of new gTLDs provides potential benefits to consumers that will not be outweighed by the potential harms."
So the topic would be:
Whether the introduction of new gTLDs provides potential benefits to consumers that will not be outweighed by the potential harms
We have all been asked to get feedback from the various SOs and ACs before next week.
I have also reported this under the status section of the Agenda for this week.
a.
No offence taken Tim. I was just suggesting an idea. I actually think you idea and Kristina's are very good. Stéphane Le 02/09/09 15:34, « Tim Ruiz » <tim@godaddy.com> a écrit :
Why couldn't we proceed without the GAC? It's not that we don't want their participation, we do. But this is a joint effort and no one AC or SO should try to control what's discussed, or be allowed to.
I agree that there is no point in spending time discussing the demand issue. I don't particularly like what Stephane is suggesting either (with all due respect). It seems a bit self-serving and not of much interest to the broader community, especially with all the other important issues that could be discussed.
Considering what's been suggested so far, I would prefer Kristina's suggestion - malicious conduct. But my suggestion is that the topic be Accountability. The Board has posted suggestions that I think fall short, and based on comments submitted regarding IIC and the NOI on the JPA I believe many if not most of the community believe they fall short regardless of where they are on whether or not the JPA should be extended.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Re: [offlist] Status/report from ACSO meeting From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Date: Wed, September 02, 2009 4:49 am To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>, Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org>
Avri, Chuck,
Agree with the both of you that this is not a particular useful topic to have at the ACSO meeting as it will just be a slugging match between the gTLD pros and cons.
I don't see who would be able to give factual information on consumer demand for new gTLDs, so it would just be everyone voicing their opinion. That's exactly what has been happening for the last couple of years anyway so in what way would such a session be productive?
Plus I have to say I find the GAC's attitude surprising ("either run our topic or we're not coming!"). I felt at the previous two ACSO sessions they were very supportive of the whole concept and very open about it. Any idea why the apparent change of attitude?
As for possible topic choices, this session being an opportunity for a get-together between the various committees and organisations that make up ICANN and that ensure that ICANN can actually function, I would think it would be more useful to have folks discuss ways to improve the ICANN, ACs and SOs processes.
As these are brainstorming sessions, I think we can be quite daring in our choices of topics.
How about something like: "with volunteer burnout becoming a pressing problem, should ICANN look into remuneration possibilities for AC and SO council and excom members?"
I'm sure most people would be against this (I certainly am), but it would give people an opportunity to explain why and what their take on being involved in the ICANN process is.
Just an idea...
Stéphane
Le 02/09/09 00:21, « Avri Doria » <avri@acm.org> a écrit :
Hi,
while not the same words, pretty much what i said. but i promised to report it in a neutral manner.
GAC is being rather insistent. they say it covers all the topics they think are interesting.
the pretty much refused (not in so few words) to hold the meeting on a Monday unless they felt the topic was one of interest to them.
i figured the GNSO was fine with not having the meeting at all and said so. but also said that the GNSO was not proposing that the meeting be cancelled.
a.
On 2 Sep 2009, at 00:14, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Should be an interesting and diverse debate but it will come down to one side's opinions versus the other's. Isn't that basically where we started in the New gTLD PDP process?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 6:04 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Status/report from ACSO meeting
Hi,
Just got out of a ACSO meeting where the topic of the meeting for Seoul was discussed.
The GAC has suggested that the Seoul ACSO meeting focus on a topic from their letter to the Board Chair of 18 Aug 09. http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-dengate-thrush -18aug09-en.pdf
Specially based on the following sentence:
"The GAC remains concerned that the threshold question has not been answered whether the introduction of new gTLDs provides potential benefits to consumers that will not be outweighed by the potential harms."
So the topic would be:
Whether the introduction of new gTLDs provides potential benefits to consumers that will not be outweighed by the potential harms
We have all been asked to get feedback from the various SOs and ACs before next week.
I have also reported this under the status section of the Agenda for this week.
a.
Hello Tim,
But my suggestion is that the topic be Accountability.
That would certainly be useful at some point. There have indeed been some proposals that were prepared by a President's advisory committee, but there hasn't really been an open community discussion on the topic at an ICANN meeting. The topic seems to get more discussion at USA hearings on the JPA, and IGF discussion forums under the topic of Internet Governance generally. Part of the issue is defining what is meant by accountability by the various parties raising that issue. Do they mean accountable to a Government or Governments, or do they mean accountability to the ICANN community - ie accountable to "members' in some way? Sometimes it seems to me that parties mean accountable to someone that they can influence :-) Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Hi On Sep 3, 2009, at 12:32 AM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Tim,
But my suggestion is that the topic be Accountability.
That would certainly be useful at some point. There have indeed been some proposals that were prepared by a President's advisory committee, but there hasn't really been an open community discussion on the topic at an ICANN meeting. The topic seems to get more discussion at USA hearings on the JPA, and IGF discussion forums under the topic of Internet Governance generally.
NCUC strongly favors making accountability the focus, inter alia for the reasons Bruce mentions. Moreover, it's probably a more effective counterproposal to the GAC than malicious conduct.
Part of the issue is defining what is meant by accountability by the various parties raising that issue.
Do they mean accountable to a Government or Governments, or do they mean accountability to the ICANN community - ie accountable to "members' in some way? Sometimes it seems to me that parties mean accountable to someone that they can influence :-)
Defining the topic narrowly will inevitably leave some parties feeling that their chief concerns about accountability are not being addressed. It would be better to have a structured discussion that addresses the different dimensions in turn. And in this context (probably this is a rather orthogonal view), given the larger global political debates---not only on JPA and in the IGF, but also in intergovernmental settings like CSTD/ECOSOC and the ITU (where the secretariat and quite a lot of governments are getting pretty aggressive about expanding its role in many aspects of Internet governance)---I would not side-step taking on the question of "accountability to governments" just because people find it odious. Actually, I think that's a good reason to take it on. On Sep 2, 2009, at 2:10 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
I am sick and tired of the GAC throwing stones from a distance and not getting their hands dirty.
So let's suggest a topic on which they would feel compelled to get their hands dirty, and thrash it out. Best, Bill
On Sep 2, 2009, at 2:10 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
I am sick and tired of the GAC throwing stones from a distance and not getting their hands dirty.
So let's suggest a topic on which they would feel compelled to get their hands dirty, and thrash it out.
Best,
Bill
I think Avri has since cleared up that misunderstanding and that that's not what the GAC were doing (throwing stones and not getting hands dirty). But in any case, I like Bill's suggestion a lot. Stéphane
participants (4)
-
Bruce Tonkin -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
Tim Ruiz -
William Drake