RE: [council] Fwd: GNSO meeting with GAC in Singapore
I would argue that the GAC only appear more important than everyone else if everyone else lets them. And to be honest, in my conversations with GAC members, I have never gotten the feeling from them that they are setting themselves up to be more important than the rest of us. They just feel that they have a responsibility that we don't: the public interest. Stéphane Le 13 juin 2011 à 02:40, <john@crediblecontext.com> a écrit :
On paper, I think Adrian has it right when he says, of the GAC, "They are no more important than any other" stake holder group, but the practice as revealed in the new gTLD negotiations seem to suggest otherwise.
Is the GAC's inability to find a friendly time to meet with the Council (more) evidence of ICANN developing a decision-making process alternative to the official one?
Or it could be that governments, on their own, are taking on a "first among equals" point-of-view.
All this makes a joint session desirable, but not worth meeting at midnight at a local McDonalds.
Berard -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Fwd: GNSO meeting with GAC in Singapore From: Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au> Date: Sun, June 12, 2011 5:00 pm To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>;, William Drake <william.drake@uzh.ch> Cc: GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org>
I find it ironic that the GAC have complained about not having their voice heard and now, when everyone is bending over backwards to accommodate them they choose not to see the GNSO Council – perhaps we are not important enough.
I say let them be and let them know that we hope to be able to accommodate them in Senegal but we will have to confirm our schedule.
Let’s remember they are but one body that feeds into this multi-stakeholder community. They are no more important than any other...
Adrian Kinderis
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Sunday, 12 June 2011 10:06 PM To: William Drake Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Fwd: GNSO meeting with GAC in Singapore
Yup, that's the general gist of what I said to Heather as well, including the fact that Thursday sounded so difficult to me for the Council to accommodate that I didn't think it would work.
Happy to insist on some face time with the GAC if the Council feels it wants to push the issue. But in the end, if they feel overstreched and would like to give the GNSO a miss this time around, it may be difficult to force them to see us.
Stéphane
Le 12 juin 2011 à 12:47, William Drake a écrit :
Hi from Singapore
Hot and humid here, you've been warned…
I have to admit I'm puzzled that GAC has time to meet with the Board, ALAC, ccNSO, registrars, SSAC, & review teams but none to meet with the Council. Meanwhile dangling in the wind are some of the ideas floated in SF (sorry, SV) such as having a joint team to explore options for including them earlier/better in GNSO work, establishing liaisons with SGs, etc. I'd have thought these and other ideas merited follow up. So if the most we can get is an informal discussion, I'd be in favor of it. But Thursday looks lousy, with public participation, IGF & JAS (at the same time, a huge pity for some of us), Council round up and the forum; the only open slots I see would be breakfast meeting (horrid) or the lunch break (for those who can skip Getting Ready).
Thoughts?
BIll
On Jun 11, 2011, at 5:30 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Councillors,
As I mentioned before, the GAC has requested that we not hold our usual meeting with them in Singapore. I have continued to discuss this with Heather, and she has sent me the following suggestion:
Hi Stéphane,
I do understand. The GAC is also reluctant but we have been very stretched for some time and haven't been able to meet with other communities. There also now 2 Review Teams in addition to dealing with the previous RT recommendations. It goes on and on.
Let 's try to arrange an informal discussion - perhaps on the Thursday? I'm not sure what all is scheduled for Thur. though I know a few of us have a lunch meeting and there is also the session on developing countries.
Heather
I don't think an informal meeting is really what we want. Plus, I think at this late stage it would be hard to organise. What does the Council think?
Thanks,
Stéphane
Début du message réexpédié :
De : <Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca> Date : 10 juin 2011 23:24:20 HAEC À : <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Objet : RE: GNSO meeting with GAC in Singapore
Hi Stéphane,
I do understand. The GAC is also reluctant but we have been very stretched for some time and haven't been able to meet with other communities. There also now 2 Review Teams in addition to dealing with the previous RT recommendations. It goes on and on.
Let 's try to arrange an informal discussion - perhaps on the Thursday? I'm not sure what all is scheduled for Thur. though I know a few of us have a lunch meeting and there is also the session on developing countries.
Heather
-----Original Message----- From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2011 12:03 PM To: Dryden, Heather: SPS Subject: Re: GNSO meeting with GAC in Singapore
Hi Heather,
Thanks for your email.
I would rather not postpone our Singapore meeting with the GAC obviously, because I know the GNSO considers those meetings as very valuable.
However I also understand that the GAC's Singapore schedule is probably so hectic you need to find time somewhere.
Would it be helpful to have an informal discussion between the GAC and GNSO Chairs and VCs in Singapore?
Stéphane
Le 6 juin 2011 à 23:25, <Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca> <Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca> a écrit :
Dear Stéphane,
I believe that we currently have 11 - 12.30 on the Wednesday scheduled for a GNSO/GAC meeting in Singapore. I would like to propose that we postpone the meeting until Senegal and perhaps schedule a longer meeting of 2 or 3 hours to permit a more in-depth discussion of how the GAC and the GNSO respectively conduct their work. This would allow the GAC to better prepare for a discussion of working methods (for example, how the GAC arrives at consensus views, what we consider to be consensus etc.). This would also provide the GNSO with the opportunity to describe/explain how you do what you do, the implications of the new structure and how the GNSO approaches policy development.
In Singapore, the GAC will be looking at ways to organize its work, including how it works with other parts of the community and prepares for meetings. I will seek GAC representatives to come forward and lead on the GNSO for the GAC. Either way, I would be happy to meet with you in Singapore (and hopefully the GAC vice-chairs could join if GAC volunteers have not yet been identified) to share some thoughts.
I would like to move to greater preparation for all the GAC face-to-face meetings (including times when the GAC is meeting by itself), with the support of the new GAC secretariat, so that discussions can be more focused when we do meet in person.
Do let me know what your thoughts are...
Many thanks and see you soon, Heather
Hi Stéphane Two small friendly quibbles. On Jun 13, 2011, at 6:07 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
I would argue that the GAC only appear more important than everyone else if everyone else lets them.
And I would argue that irrespective of how the GAC's influence to date appears from the perspective of our sandbox, a) the governments they represent have a lot of cards to play if they think push has come to shove, and b) there's one government that's already proven not to be shy about getting into the game.
And to be honest, in my conversations with GAC members, I have never gotten the feeling from them that they are setting themselves up to be more important than the rest of us. They just feel that they have a responsibility that we don't: the public interest.
We don't? Under the AoC "ICANN" has that responsibility, not the GAC alone. Are we not ICANN? Cheers, Bill
Le 13 juin 2011 à 02:40, <john@crediblecontext.com> a écrit :
On paper, I think Adrian has it right when he says, of the GAC, "They are no more important than any other" stake holder group, but the practice as revealed in the new gTLD negotiations seem to suggest otherwise.
Is the GAC's inability to find a friendly time to meet with the Council (more) evidence of ICANN developing a decision-making process alternative to the official one?
Or it could be that governments, on their own, are taking on a "first among equals" point-of-view.
All this makes a joint session desirable, but not worth meeting at midnight at a local McDonalds.
Berard -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Fwd: GNSO meeting with GAC in Singapore From: Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au> Date: Sun, June 12, 2011 5:00 pm To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>;, William Drake <william.drake@uzh.ch> Cc: GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org>
I find it ironic that the GAC have complained about not having their voice heard and now, when everyone is bending over backwards to accommodate them they choose not to see the GNSO Council – perhaps we are not important enough.
I say let them be and let them know that we hope to be able to accommodate them in Senegal but we will have to confirm our schedule.
Let’s remember they are but one body that feeds into this multi-stakeholder community. They are no more important than any other...
Adrian Kinderis
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Sunday, 12 June 2011 10:06 PM To: William Drake Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Fwd: GNSO meeting with GAC in Singapore
Yup, that's the general gist of what I said to Heather as well, including the fact that Thursday sounded so difficult to me for the Council to accommodate that I didn't think it would work.
Happy to insist on some face time with the GAC if the Council feels it wants to push the issue. But in the end, if they feel overstreched and would like to give the GNSO a miss this time around, it may be difficult to force them to see us.
Stéphane
Le 12 juin 2011 à 12:47, William Drake a écrit :
Hi from Singapore
Hot and humid here, you've been warned…
I have to admit I'm puzzled that GAC has time to meet with the Board, ALAC, ccNSO, registrars, SSAC, & review teams but none to meet with the Council. Meanwhile dangling in the wind are some of the ideas floated in SF (sorry, SV) such as having a joint team to explore options for including them earlier/better in GNSO work, establishing liaisons with SGs, etc. I'd have thought these and other ideas merited follow up. So if the most we can get is an informal discussion, I'd be in favor of it. But Thursday looks lousy, with public participation, IGF & JAS (at the same time, a huge pity for some of us), Council round up and the forum; the only open slots I see would be breakfast meeting (horrid) or the lunch break (for those who can skip Getting Ready).
Thoughts?
BIll
On Jun 11, 2011, at 5:30 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Councillors,
As I mentioned before, the GAC has requested that we not hold our usual meeting with them in Singapore. I have continued to discuss this with Heather, and she has sent me the following suggestion:
Hi Stéphane,
I do understand. The GAC is also reluctant but we have been very stretched for some time and haven't been able to meet with other communities. There also now 2 Review Teams in addition to dealing with the previous RT recommendations. It goes on and on.
Let 's try to arrange an informal discussion - perhaps on the Thursday? I'm not sure what all is scheduled for Thur. though I know a few of us have a lunch meeting and there is also the session on developing countries.
Heather
I don't think an informal meeting is really what we want. Plus, I think at this late stage it would be hard to organise. What does the Council think?
Thanks,
Stéphane
Début du message réexpédié :
De : <Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca> Date : 10 juin 2011 23:24:20 HAEC À : <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Objet : RE: GNSO meeting with GAC in Singapore
Hi Stéphane,
I do understand. The GAC is also reluctant but we have been very stretched for some time and haven't been able to meet with other communities. There also now 2 Review Teams in addition to dealing with the previous RT recommendations. It goes on and on.
Let 's try to arrange an informal discussion - perhaps on the Thursday? I'm not sure what all is scheduled for Thur. though I know a few of us have a lunch meeting and there is also the session on developing countries.
Heather
-----Original Message----- From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2011 12:03 PM To: Dryden, Heather: SPS Subject: Re: GNSO meeting with GAC in Singapore
Hi Heather,
Thanks for your email.
I would rather not postpone our Singapore meeting with the GAC obviously, because I know the GNSO considers those meetings as very valuable.
However I also understand that the GAC's Singapore schedule is probably so hectic you need to find time somewhere.
Would it be helpful to have an informal discussion between the GAC and GNSO Chairs and VCs in Singapore?
Stéphane
Le 6 juin 2011 à 23:25, <Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca> <Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca> a écrit :
Dear Stéphane,
I believe that we currently have 11 - 12.30 on the Wednesday scheduled for a GNSO/GAC meeting in Singapore. I would like to propose that we postpone the meeting until Senegal and perhaps schedule a longer meeting of 2 or 3 hours to permit a more in-depth discussion of how the GAC and the GNSO respectively conduct their work. This would allow the GAC to better prepare for a discussion of working methods (for example, how the GAC arrives at consensus views, what we consider to be consensus etc.). This would also provide the GNSO with the opportunity to describe/explain how you do what you do, the implications of the new structure and how the GNSO approaches policy development.
In Singapore, the GAC will be looking at ways to organize its work, including how it works with other parts of the community and prepares for meetings. I will seek GAC representatives to come forward and lead on the GNSO for the GAC. Either way, I would be happy to meet with you in Singapore (and hopefully the GAC vice-chairs could join if GAC volunteers have not yet been identified) to share some thoughts.
I would like to move to greater preparation for all the GAC face-to-face meetings (including times when the GAC is meeting by itself), with the support of the new GAC secretariat, so that discussions can be more focused when we do meet in person.
Do let me know what your thoughts are...
Many thanks and see you soon, Heather
Le 13 juin 2011 à 13:51, William Drake a écrit :
Hi Stéphane
Two small friendly quibbles.
On Jun 13, 2011, at 6:07 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
I would argue that the GAC only appear more important than everyone else if everyone else lets them.
And I would argue that irrespective of how the GAC's influence to date appears from the perspective of our sandbox, a) the governments they represent have a lot of cards to play if they think push has come to shove, and b) there's one government that's already proven not to be shy about getting into the game.
And to be honest, in my conversations with GAC members, I have never gotten the feeling from them that they are setting themselves up to be more important than the rest of us. They just feel that they have a responsibility that we don't: the public interest.
We don't? Under the AoC "ICANN" has that responsibility, not the GAC alone. Are we not ICANN?
(SVG) In govts' eyes, they are ultimately responsible for it.
Cheers,
Bill
Le 13 juin 2011 à 02:40, <john@crediblecontext.com> a écrit :
On paper, I think Adrian has it right when he says, of the GAC, "They are no more important than any other" stake holder group, but the practice as revealed in the new gTLD negotiations seem to suggest otherwise.
Is the GAC's inability to find a friendly time to meet with the Council (more) evidence of ICANN developing a decision-making process alternative to the official one?
Or it could be that governments, on their own, are taking on a "first among equals" point-of-view.
All this makes a joint session desirable, but not worth meeting at midnight at a local McDonalds.
Berard -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Fwd: GNSO meeting with GAC in Singapore From: Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au> Date: Sun, June 12, 2011 5:00 pm To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>;, William Drake <william.drake@uzh.ch> Cc: GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org>
I find it ironic that the GAC have complained about not having their voice heard and now, when everyone is bending over backwards to accommodate them they choose not to see the GNSO Council – perhaps we are not important enough.
I say let them be and let them know that we hope to be able to accommodate them in Senegal but we will have to confirm our schedule.
Let’s remember they are but one body that feeds into this multi-stakeholder community. They are no more important than any other...
Adrian Kinderis
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Sunday, 12 June 2011 10:06 PM To: William Drake Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Fwd: GNSO meeting with GAC in Singapore
Yup, that's the general gist of what I said to Heather as well, including the fact that Thursday sounded so difficult to me for the Council to accommodate that I didn't think it would work.
Happy to insist on some face time with the GAC if the Council feels it wants to push the issue. But in the end, if they feel overstreched and would like to give the GNSO a miss this time around, it may be difficult to force them to see us.
Stéphane
Le 12 juin 2011 à 12:47, William Drake a écrit :
Hi from Singapore
Hot and humid here, you've been warned…
I have to admit I'm puzzled that GAC has time to meet with the Board, ALAC, ccNSO, registrars, SSAC, & review teams but none to meet with the Council. Meanwhile dangling in the wind are some of the ideas floated in SF (sorry, SV) such as having a joint team to explore options for including them earlier/better in GNSO work, establishing liaisons with SGs, etc. I'd have thought these and other ideas merited follow up. So if the most we can get is an informal discussion, I'd be in favor of it. But Thursday looks lousy, with public participation, IGF & JAS (at the same time, a huge pity for some of us), Council round up and the forum; the only open slots I see would be breakfast meeting (horrid) or the lunch break (for those who can skip Getting Ready).
Thoughts?
BIll
On Jun 11, 2011, at 5:30 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Councillors,
As I mentioned before, the GAC has requested that we not hold our usual meeting with them in Singapore. I have continued to discuss this with Heather, and she has sent me the following suggestion:
Hi Stéphane,
I do understand. The GAC is also reluctant but we have been very stretched for some time and haven't been able to meet with other communities. There also now 2 Review Teams in addition to dealing with the previous RT recommendations. It goes on and on.
Let 's try to arrange an informal discussion - perhaps on the Thursday? I'm not sure what all is scheduled for Thur. though I know a few of us have a lunch meeting and there is also the session on developing countries.
Heather
I don't think an informal meeting is really what we want. Plus, I think at this late stage it would be hard to organise. What does the Council think?
Thanks,
Stéphane
Début du message réexpédié :
De : <Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca> Date : 10 juin 2011 23:24:20 HAEC À : <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Objet : RE: GNSO meeting with GAC in Singapore
Hi Stéphane,
I do understand. The GAC is also reluctant but we have been very stretched for some time and haven't been able to meet with other communities. There also now 2 Review Teams in addition to dealing with the previous RT recommendations. It goes on and on.
Let 's try to arrange an informal discussion - perhaps on the Thursday? I'm not sure what all is scheduled for Thur. though I know a few of us have a lunch meeting and there is also the session on developing countries.
Heather
-----Original Message----- From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2011 12:03 PM To: Dryden, Heather: SPS Subject: Re: GNSO meeting with GAC in Singapore
Hi Heather,
Thanks for your email.
I would rather not postpone our Singapore meeting with the GAC obviously, because I know the GNSO considers those meetings as very valuable.
However I also understand that the GAC's Singapore schedule is probably so hectic you need to find time somewhere.
Would it be helpful to have an informal discussion between the GAC and GNSO Chairs and VCs in Singapore?
Stéphane
Le 6 juin 2011 à 23:25, <Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca> <Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca> a écrit :
Dear Stéphane,
I believe that we currently have 11 - 12.30 on the Wednesday scheduled for a GNSO/GAC meeting in Singapore. I would like to propose that we postpone the meeting until Senegal and perhaps schedule a longer meeting of 2 or 3 hours to permit a more in-depth discussion of how the GAC and the GNSO respectively conduct their work. This would allow the GAC to better prepare for a discussion of working methods (for example, how the GAC arrives at consensus views, what we consider to be consensus etc.). This would also provide the GNSO with the opportunity to describe/explain how you do what you do, the implications of the new structure and how the GNSO approaches policy development.
In Singapore, the GAC will be looking at ways to organize its work, including how it works with other parts of the community and prepares for meetings. I will seek GAC representatives to come forward and lead on the GNSO for the GAC. Either way, I would be happy to meet with you in Singapore (and hopefully the GAC vice-chairs could join if GAC volunteers have not yet been identified) to share some thoughts.
I would like to move to greater preparation for all the GAC face-to-face meetings (including times when the GAC is meeting by itself), with the support of the new GAC secretariat, so that discussions can be more focused when we do meet in person.
Do let me know what your thoughts are...
Many thanks and see you soon, Heather
It's the core dilemma: Can DNS market participants deliver the public interest outcomes that ICANN has signed up for?? And on the other side, can geographically constrained governments define and deliver public interest outcomes in a global marketplace? And what to make of market based regulation in light of the GFC??? Perhaps best left for a chat over a Singapore Sling!! Rosemary Sent from my iPhone On 13/06/2011, at 9:54 PM, "William Drake" <william.drake@uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch>> wrote: Hi Stéphane Two small friendly quibbles. On Jun 13, 2011, at 6:07 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: I would argue that the GAC only appear more important than everyone else if everyone else lets them. And I would argue that irrespective of how the GAC's influence to date appears from the perspective of our sandbox, a) the governments they represent have a lot of cards to play if they think push has come to shove, and b) there's one government that's already proven not to be shy about getting into the game. And to be honest, in my conversations with GAC members, I have never gotten the feeling from them that they are setting themselves up to be more important than the rest of us. They just feel that they have a responsibility that we don't: the public interest. We don't? Under the AoC "ICANN" has that responsibility, not the GAC alone. Are we not ICANN? Cheers, Bill Le 13 juin 2011 à 02:40, <<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>> a écrit : On paper, I think Adrian has it right when he says, of the GAC, "They are no more important than any other" stake holder group, but the practice as revealed in the new gTLD negotiations seem to suggest otherwise. Is the GAC's inability to find a friendly time to meet with the Council (more) evidence of ICANN developing a decision-making process alternative to the official one? Or it could be that governments, on their own, are taking on a "first among equals" point-of-view. All this makes a joint session desirable, but not worth meeting at midnight at a local McDonalds. Berard -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Fwd: GNSO meeting with GAC in Singapore From: Adrian Kinderis <<mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au>adrian@ausregistry.com.au<mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au>> Date: Sun, June 12, 2011 5:00 pm To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <<http://stephane.vangelder@indom.com>>stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>>;, William Drake <<mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch>william.drake@uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch>> Cc: GNSO Council <<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> I find it ironic that the GAC have complained about not having their voice heard and now, when everyone is bending over backwards to accommodate them they choose not to see the GNSO Council – perhaps we are not important enough. I say let them be and let them know that we hope to be able to accommodate them in Senegal but we will have to confirm our schedule. Let’s remember they are but one body that feeds into this multi-stakeholder community. They are no more important than any other... Adrian Kinderis From: <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Sunday, 12 June 2011 10:06 PM To: William Drake Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Fwd: GNSO meeting with GAC in Singapore Yup, that's the general gist of what I said to Heather as well, including the fact that Thursday sounded so difficult to me for the Council to accommodate that I didn't think it would work. Happy to insist on some face time with the GAC if the Council feels it wants to push the issue. But in the end, if they feel overstreched and would like to give the GNSO a miss this time around, it may be difficult to force them to see us. Stéphane Le 12 juin 2011 à 12:47, William Drake a écrit : Hi from Singapore Hot and humid here, you've been warned… I have to admit I'm puzzled that GAC has time to meet with the Board, ALAC, ccNSO, registrars, SSAC, & review teams but none to meet with the Council. Meanwhile dangling in the wind are some of the ideas floated in SF (sorry, SV) such as having a joint team to explore options for including them earlier/better in GNSO work, establishing liaisons with SGs, etc. I'd have thought these and other ideas merited follow up. So if the most we can get is an informal discussion, I'd be in favor of it. But Thursday looks lousy, with public participation, IGF & JAS (at the same time, a huge pity for some of us), Council round up and the forum; the only open slots I see would be breakfast meeting (horrid) or the lunch break (for those who can skip Getting Ready). Thoughts? BIll On Jun 11, 2011, at 5:30 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: Councillors, As I mentioned before, the GAC has requested that we not hold our usual meeting with them in Singapore. I have continued to discuss this with Heather, and she has sent me the following suggestion: Hi Stéphane, I do understand. The GAC is also reluctant but we have been very stretched for some time and haven't been able to meet with other communities. There also now 2 Review Teams in addition to dealing with the previous RT recommendations. It goes on and on. Let 's try to arrange an informal discussion - perhaps on the Thursday? I'm not sure what all is scheduled for Thur. though I know a few of us have a lunch meeting and there is also the session on developing countries. Heather I don't think an informal meeting is really what we want. Plus, I think at this late stage it would be hard to organise. What does the Council think? Thanks, Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : De : <<mailto:Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca>Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca<mailto:Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca>> Date : 10 juin 2011 23:24:20 HAEC À : <<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>> Objet : RE: GNSO meeting with GAC in Singapore Hi Stéphane, I do understand. The GAC is also reluctant but we have been very stretched for some time and haven't been able to meet with other communities. There also now 2 Review Teams in addition to dealing with the previous RT recommendations. It goes on and on. Let 's try to arrange an informal discussion - perhaps on the Thursday? I'm not sure what all is scheduled for Thur. though I know a few of us have a lunch meeting and there is also the session on developing countries. Heather -----Original Message----- From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:<http://stephane.vangelder@indom.com/>stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>] Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2011 12:03 PM To: Dryden, Heather: SPS Subject: Re: GNSO meeting with GAC in Singapore Hi Heather, Thanks for your email. I would rather not postpone our Singapore meeting with the GAC obviously, because I know the GNSO considers those meetings as very valuable. However I also understand that the GAC's Singapore schedule is probably so hectic you need to find time somewhere. Would it be helpful to have an informal discussion between the GAC and GNSO Chairs and VCs in Singapore? Stéphane Le 6 juin 2011 à 23:25, <<mailto:Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca>Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca<mailto:Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca>> <<mailto:Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca>Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca<mailto:Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca>> a écrit : Dear Stéphane, I believe that we currently have 11 - 12.30 on the Wednesday scheduled for a GNSO/GAC meeting in Singapore. I would like to propose that we postpone the meeting until Senegal and perhaps schedule a longer meeting of 2 or 3 hours to permit a more in-depth discussion of how the GAC and the GNSO respectively conduct their work. This would allow the GAC to better prepare for a discussion of working methods (for example, how the GAC arrives at consensus views, what we consider to be consensus etc.). This would also provide the GNSO with the opportunity to describe/explain how you do what you do, the implications of the new structure and how the GNSO approaches policy development. In Singapore, the GAC will be looking at ways to organize its work, including how it works with other parts of the community and prepares for meetings. I will seek GAC representatives to come forward and lead on the GNSO for the GAC. Either way, I would be happy to meet with you in Singapore (and hopefully the GAC vice-chairs could join if GAC volunteers have not yet been identified) to share some thoughts. I would like to move to greater preparation for all the GAC face-to-face meetings (including times when the GAC is meeting by itself), with the support of the new GAC secretariat, so that discussions can be more focused when we do meet in person. Do let me know what your thoughts are... Many thanks and see you soon, Heather
participants (4)
-
john＠crediblecontext.com -
Rosemary Sinclair -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
William Drake