Definitely support continuing Dan -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 7:40 AM To: Volker Greimann Cc: Council Subject: Re: [council] Motion to extend term of GNSO liaison to the GAC Wow, that went quickly. Naturally I support Mason's continuing in this role. Seconded. Thank you, J. ____________ James Bladel GoDaddy

On Jun 5, 2015, at 07:37, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-Systems.net> wrote:

Dear councillors,

as the pilot program for the GNSO liaison to the GAC will be ending its first term shortly, and the role has shown to be beneficial to both the council and the GAC, it would be beneficial to extend the program for FY 16.

I am therefore submitting this motion to extend the term of the current GNSO liaison, Mason Cole, for your attention and approval. Mason has already indicated he would be willing to serve another term.

Best regards,

Volker

<Motion to extend term of GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee.docx>

I guess I misunderstood this motion to be specific to renewing Mason's role as liaison. I agree with Avri that we should assess the overall efficacy of the GAC pilot program, but just assumed that was a separate topic. And if for some reason we decided to sunset the pilot, then the liaison role would go with it. Thank you, J. ____________ James Bladel GoDaddy

On Jun 5, 2015, at 08:38, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

Hi

While I probably agree, I think it would be good to have an analysis of what it achieved before we decide to renew it.

To what extent have things changed? Do we get input earlier? Have we stopped GAC end runs? Or even slowed them down? Have we made sure that GAC concerns where not only fed in early enough in the various processes, but are taken seriously and avoided end runs?

I expect the answer to most of these is a somewhat tepid 'maybe'.

So while I am possibly inclined to voting for another year of pilot, since it is a pilot I believe I need a bit more information before deciding.

Also is there a similar move in the GAC to renew? Or will we be renewing it and then asking them to do please do likewise? Have they invited us to renew? I know the motions say that both GAC and the GNSO have already agreed to renew, perhaps we should list the resolutions and the statement from GAC that shows this is so. I think I missed them somehow.

thanks

avri

...

On 05-Jun-15 08:35, Volker Greimann wrote:

Dear councillors,

as the pilot program for the GNSO liaison to the GAC will be ending its first term shortly, and the role has shown to be beneficial to both the council and the GAC, it would be beneficial to extend the program for FY 16.

I am therefore submitting this motion to extend the term of the current GNSO liaison, Mason Cole, for your attention and approval. Mason has already indicated he would be willing to serve another term.

Best regards,

Volker

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Avri, you raise interesting questions, and I hope we will be able to discuss them here on list and at our next meeting. As Carlos pointed out, this is intended purely to maintain the liaison function, which has served us and the GAC by allowing Mason to convey our thinking to the GAC and the other way round. As Phil pointed out, direct benefits were seen also in the IGO WG. Is it enough to warrant the continuation? I believe it is, but you are right that we should have this discussion. After all, an informed approval is better than just waiving it through. Best, Volker Am 05.06.2015 um 15:37 schrieb Avri Doria:

Hi

While I probably agree, I think it would be good to have an analysis of what it achieved before we decide to renew it.

To what extent have things changed? Do we get input earlier? Have we stopped GAC end runs? Or even slowed them down? Have we made sure that GAC concerns where not only fed in early enough in the various processes, but are taken seriously and avoided end runs?

I expect the answer to most of these is a somewhat tepid 'maybe'.

So while I am possibly inclined to voting for another year of pilot, since it is a pilot I believe I need a bit more information before deciding.

Also is there a similar move in the GAC to renew? Or will we be renewing it and then asking them to do please do likewise? Have they invited us to renew? I know the motions say that both GAC and the GNSO have already agreed to renew, perhaps we should list the resolutions and the statement from GAC that shows this is so. I think I missed them somehow.

thanks

avri

On 05-Jun-15 08:35, Volker Greimann wrote:

...

Dear councillors,

as the pilot program for the GNSO liaison to the GAC will be ending its first term shortly, and the role has shown to be beneficial to both the council and the GAC, it would be beneficial to extend the program for FY 16.

I am therefore submitting this motion to extend the term of the current GNSO liaison, Mason Cole, for your attention and approval. Mason has already indicated he would be willing to serve another term.

Best regards,

Volker

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.

Avri, all, the pilot was initially approved for one year peiod (FY15), but the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group was of the view that more time was needed to be able to evaluate the pilot and make an informed decision on whether or not to continue, as such it recommended to the GNSO Council and the GAC to extend the pilot for FY16 and to this end a special community budget request was submitted to the ICANN Board (see FY16-18-GAC / GNSO- GAC ­ GNSO Liaison ­ Pilot Project request on https://community.icann.org/x/TAwnAw), which was subsequently granted by the ICANN Board. Best regards, Marika On 05/06/15 17:46, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:

Hi,

As long as the pilot is continuing, sure, I am happy for Mason to stay in the role. That is not my issue and I misundertood the motion as implying an approval of continuing the program. I forget, does the pilot have a sunset date when it ceases to be a pilot and become a steady state practice? Or is nothing so permanent as a temporary solution, i.e. the pilot is permanent?

And if Mason is being able to help untangle at least a few issues that is a really good thing to hear.

avri

On 05-Jun-15 10:56, Volker Greimann wrote:

...

Avri,

you raise interesting questions, and I hope we will be able to discuss them here on list and at our next meeting. As Carlos pointed out, this is intended purely to maintain the liaison function, which has served us and the GAC by allowing Mason to convey our thinking to the GAC and the other way round. As Phil pointed out, direct benefits were seen also in the IGO WG.

Is it enough to warrant the continuation? I believe it is, but you are right that we should have this discussion. After all, an informed approval is better than just waiving it through.

Best,

Volker

Am 05.06.2015 um 15:37 schrieb Avri Doria:

...

Hi

While I probably agree, I think it would be good to have an analysis of what it achieved before we decide to renew it.

To what extent have things changed? Do we get input earlier? Have we stopped GAC end runs? Or even slowed them down? Have we made sure that GAC concerns where not only fed in early enough in the various processes, but are taken seriously and avoided end runs?

I expect the answer to most of these is a somewhat tepid 'maybe'.

So while I am possibly inclined to voting for another year of pilot, since it is a pilot I believe I need a bit more information before deciding.

Also is there a similar move in the GAC to renew? Or will we be renewing it and then asking them to do please do likewise? Have they invited us to renew? I know the motions say that both GAC and the GNSO have already agreed to renew, perhaps we should list the resolutions and the statement from GAC that shows this is so. I think I missed them somehow.

thanks

avri

On 05-Jun-15 08:35, Volker Greimann wrote:

...

Dear councillors,

as the pilot program for the GNSO liaison to the GAC will be ending its first term shortly, and the role has shown to be beneficial to both the council and the GAC, it would be beneficial to extend the program for FY 16.

I am therefore submitting this motion to extend the term of the current GNSO liaison, Mason Cole, for your attention and approval. Mason has already indicated he would be willing to serve another term.

Best regards,

Volker

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Amr, all -- In reading this string, I was going to provide an update but Amr very well summed up where things stand at the moment. For the past year, much of this role has been working with the CG to establish a process for engagement of the GAC in the policy process. Speaking for myself, I believe that's been well accomplished with the engagement process we've designed. That process is now being put to the test with the board-initiated PDP on next-generation registration directory services (final report here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf) So while there has yet to be any formal input from the GAC on policy, the role has been busy (and I hope fruitful) for the past year, and I anticipate that should it continue, it will continue to be so. I welcome any discussion or questions on the part of the council, and as noted, I would be pleased to serve another term in this function. Thanks -- Mason On Jun 5, 2015, at 9:25 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:

Hi,

My understanding has always been that the two are interconnected (the GNSO liaison to the GAC and the work of the GAC-GNSO Consultative Group “CG”). If I recall correctly, the GNSO liaison to the GAC was a suggestion of that group with the intention of the liaison serving a role in the early engagement process.

Perhaps an updated briefing of that group’s work is in order, however, I’m not sure that much has been done since the last time the Council discussed this topic. Although the GAC has not (to my knowledge) specifically renewed its commitment to the group’s work, it hasn’t (again…, to my knowledge) indicated otherwise.

Recently, one of the outcomes of the CG has been that both the GNSO Council and the GAC have approved the launching of a pilot program to implement a set of recommendations targeting GAC early engagement in the GNSO’s PDP — specifically, the issue scoping phase of a PDP (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gac-cg-issue-scoping-27jan15-en.pdf). The GAC-GNSO CG has also begun working on a set of criteria to evaluate how effective these recommendations will be. That may prove to be helpful in any future analysis of the extent of success of this program. However, this will not be possible until a new PDP is launched, which has not happened since these recommendations were adopted.

It is also noteworthy to mention that the GNSO liaison to the GAC has specific duties to carry out in this issue scoping phase pilot program. Mason has been very helpful in the development of this role, so personally, I believe it would be beneficial to extend his term for another year.

Thanks.

Amr

On Jun 5, 2015, at 5:46 PM, Avri Doria <avri@ACM.ORG> wrote:

...

Hi,

As long as the pilot is continuing, sure, I am happy for Mason to stay in the role. That is not my issue and I misundertood the motion as implying an approval of continuing the program. I forget, does the pilot have a sunset date when it ceases to be a pilot and become a steady state practice? Or is nothing so permanent as a temporary solution, i.e. the pilot is permanent?

And if Mason is being able to help untangle at least a few issues that is a really good thing to hear.

avri

On 05-Jun-15 10:56, Volker Greimann wrote:

...

Avri,

you raise interesting questions, and I hope we will be able to discuss them here on list and at our next meeting. As Carlos pointed out, this is intended purely to maintain the liaison function, which has served us and the GAC by allowing Mason to convey our thinking to the GAC and the other way round. As Phil pointed out, direct benefits were seen also in the IGO WG.

Is it enough to warrant the continuation? I believe it is, but you are right that we should have this discussion. After all, an informed approval is better than just waiving it through.

Best,

Volker

Am 05.06.2015 um 15:37 schrieb Avri Doria:

...

Hi

While I probably agree, I think it would be good to have an analysis of what it achieved before we decide to renew it.

To what extent have things changed? Do we get input earlier? Have we stopped GAC end runs? Or even slowed them down? Have we made sure that GAC concerns where not only fed in early enough in the various processes, but are taken seriously and avoided end runs?

I expect the answer to most of these is a somewhat tepid 'maybe'.

So while I am possibly inclined to voting for another year of pilot, since it is a pilot I believe I need a bit more information before deciding.

Also is there a similar move in the GAC to renew? Or will we be renewing it and then asking them to do please do likewise? Have they invited us to renew? I know the motions say that both GAC and the GNSO have already agreed to renew, perhaps we should list the resolutions and the statement from GAC that shows this is so. I think I missed them somehow.

thanks

avri

On 05-Jun-15 08:35, Volker Greimann wrote:

...

Dear councillors,

as the pilot program for the GNSO liaison to the GAC will be ending its first term shortly, and the role has shown to be beneficial to both the council and the GAC, it would be beneficial to extend the program for FY 16.

I am therefore submitting this motion to extend the term of the current GNSO liaison, Mason Cole, for your attention and approval. Mason has already indicated he would be willing to serve another term.

Best regards,

Volker

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Mason Cole VP Communications & Industry Relations Donuts Inc. ………………………………………… mason@donuts.co Ofc +1 503 908 7623 Cell +1 503 407 2555