Beijing / Meetings with GAC & ccNSO
All, Many of you will recall that, pre-Toronto, we held regular meetings with both the GAC & the ccNSO at the ICANN meetings. These meetings were scheduled in advance and then we typically discussed or developed topics during the weekend sessions. In my opinion the meetings were not always that successful for a variety of reasons, one of which could be that we were not necessarily adequately prepared or engaged, or vice cersa In anticipation of meeting one or both of the GAC & the ccNSO in Beijing, we have reached out to them relatively early. The initial question from the ccNSO has been, tell us what you'd like to discuss / meet about and then we can agree whether or not to meet. I am certain that the GAC will also seek to discuss and agree some topics at least if we are to meet with them. Personally, I was disappointed not to meet with the GAC in Toronto and feel that it is important to us to do so. Therefore the following questions arise: 1. Do you support an initiative to meet with the ccNSO in Beijing? 2. If yes, please try to assist with any suggested topics or issues to discuss and potentially collaborate on? 3. Do you support an initiative to meet with the GAC in Beijing? 4. If yes, please try to assist with any suggested topics or issues to discuss and potentially collaborate on? I look forward to hearing back from you on this as will Mason in terms of his planning for the Beijing meeting. Thank-you. Jonathan Jonathan Robinson Chair ICANN GNSO Council <mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com skype: jonathan.m.r
Jonathan, I agree that meeting with the ccNSO and the GAC ought to be regular features, but it falls to us, I think, to offer an agenda that is compelling. This is not always as easy as it sounds as some of what collaborative interests the GNSO sees are not always seen by our counterparts. With regard to the ccNSO, at the least, the impending new gTLDs will/should have significant market effect on registrants who don't make the same distinctions we do between g and cc names. What do we think will happen and how will we respond? Note that I am on my first ccNSO Council call next week as liaison. I may hear something that prompts another suggestion. With regard to the GAC, I would be interested in hearing about any national initiatives that might affect the global internet (e.g., the emerging EU privacy directive). It is clear, though, that the ICO/Red Cross/NGO name protection will cast a shadow over all. Cheers, Berard --------- Original Message ---------Subject: [council] Beijing / Meetings with GAC & ccNSO From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> Date: 2/5/13 2:04 pm To: council@gnso.icann.org All, Many of you will recall that, pre-Toronto, we held regular meetings with both the GAC & the ccNSO at the ICANN meetings. These meetings were scheduled in advance and then we typically discussed or developed topics during the weekend sessions. In my opinion the meetings were not always that successful for a variety of reasons, one of which could be that we were not necessarily adequately prepared or engaged, or vice cersa In anticipation of meeting one or both of the GAC & the ccNSO in Beijing, we have reached out to them relatively early. The initial question from the ccNSO has been, tell us what you’d like to discuss / meet about and then we can agree whether or not to meet. I am certain that the GAC will also seek to discuss and agree some topics at least if we are to meet with them. Personally, I was disappointed not to meet with the GAC in Toronto and feel that it is important to us to do so. Therefore the following questions arise: 1. Do you support an initiative to meet with the ccNSO in Beijing? 2. If yes, please try to assist with any suggested topics or issues to discuss and potentially collaborate on? 3. Do you support an initiative to meet with the GAC in Beijing? 4. If yes, please try to assist with any suggested topics or issues to discuss and potentially collaborate on? I look forward to hearing back from you on this as will Mason in terms of his planning for the Beijing meeting. Thank-you. Jonathan Jonathan Robinson Chair ICANN GNSO Council jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com skype: jonathan.m.r
I support meeting with both and indeed would appreciate hearing from the council on topics. On Feb 5, 2013, at 2:04 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All,
Many of you will recall that, pre-Toronto, we held regular meetings with both the GAC & the ccNSO at the ICANN meetings. These meetings were scheduled in advance and then we typically discussed or developed topics during the weekend sessions.
In my opinion the meetings were not always that successful for a variety of reasons, one of which could be that we were not necessarily adequately prepared or engaged, or vice cersa In anticipation of meeting one or both of the GAC & the ccNSO in Beijing, we have reached out to them relatively early.
The initial question from the ccNSO has been, tell us what you’d like to discuss / meet about and then we can agree whether or not to meet. I am certain that the GAC will also seek to discuss and agree some topics at least if we are to meet with them.
Personally, I was disappointed not to meet with the GAC in Toronto and feel that it is important to us to do so.
Therefore the following questions arise:
1. Do you support an initiative to meet with the ccNSO in Beijing? 2. If yes, please try to assist with any suggested topics or issues to discuss and potentially collaborate on?
3. Do you support an initiative to meet with the GAC in Beijing? 4. If yes, please try to assist with any suggested topics or issues to discuss and potentially collaborate on?
I look forward to hearing back from you on this as will Mason in terms of his planning for the Beijing meeting.
Thank-you.
Jonathan
Jonathan Robinson Chair ICANN GNSO Council
jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com skype: jonathan.m.r
Hi Jonathan, I agree with John that the key to a successful meeting (and any information-sharing or collaboration that may lead to) is an agenda of interest to all parties. The g versus cc topic seems fruitful - something all parties are interested in, some quite concerned about and where everyone could benefit from others' perspective. If it was structured on the basis of info-sharing and some discussion, then it could be really useful. Updates on regional initiatives such as the data protection directive revision may be useful, as there seems to be quite a bit of misinformation about it. Perhaps under the umbrella topic of registrars, registries and national laws. Maria On 8 February 2013 18:11, Mason Cole <mcole@5x5com.com> wrote:
I support meeting with both and indeed would appreciate hearing from the council on topics.
On Feb 5, 2013, at 2:04 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All,**** ** ** Many of you will recall that, pre-Toronto, we held regular meetings with both the GAC & the ccNSO at the ICANN meetings.**** These meetings were scheduled in advance and then we typically discussed or developed topics during the weekend sessions.**** ** ** In my opinion the meetings were not always that successful for a variety of reasons, one of which could be that we were not necessarily adequately prepared or engaged, or vice cersa**** In anticipation of meeting one or both of the GAC & the ccNSO in Beijing, we have reached out to them relatively early.****
The initial question from the ccNSO has been, tell us what you’d like to discuss / meet about and then we can agree whether or not to meet.**** I am certain that the GAC will also seek to discuss and agree some topics at least if we are to meet with them.**** ** ** Personally, I was disappointed not to meet with the GAC in Toronto and feel that it is important to us to do so.**** ** ** Therefore the following questions arise:**** ** ** 1. Do you support an initiative to meet with the ccNSO in Beijing?** ** 2. If yes, please try to assist with any suggested topics or issues to discuss and potentially collaborate on?**** ** ** 3. Do you support an initiative to meet with the GAC in Beijing?**** 4. If yes, please try to assist with any suggested topics or issues to discuss and potentially collaborate on?**** ** ** I look forward to hearing back from you on this as will Mason in terms of his planning for the Beijing meeting.**** ** ** Thank-you.**** ** ** ** ** Jonathan**** ** ** ** ** ** ** Jonathan Robinson**** Chair**** ICANN GNSO Council**** ** ** jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com**** skype: jonathan.m.r**** ** ** ** **
Jonathan, all, while I agree with most of what has been said by fellow Councillors in response to your request, I have a general question: Is it just us needing to come up with what John calls (rightfully) a compelling agenda or isn't the "burden" on both parties? ad 1 and 2: As far as the ccNSO is concerned, we already had sessions in the past talking about the impact of new gTLDs, but they were quite superficial. While I could not be in favor of repeating statements made before, I guess that a well prepared discussion would be meaningful. Whois (which is closely linked to John's point on the EU data protection laws) might also be a topic of mutual interest. In my view such sessions would need to be carefully prepared - imho best done by reps from both parties taking care of that. I would volunteer to be part of that. In the absence of a good preparation, we might better not put these points on the agenda. ad 3 and 4: I definitely support an initiative to meet with the GAC. As chair of the IOC-RCRC-IGO-INGO PDP WG I would very much welcome the opportunity to discuss this very topic. You will recall that this PDP was tagged a case study by both the Board and the GAC and as a consequence we should consider being an active part in making this case study successful. Our leadership (you or one of the vice chairs :-)) might wish to reach out to both the GAC and the Board to find out what their plan was with the case study? Was the idea to just observe and evaluate jointly or separately after it is over? Was the idea to be more active by engaging in the process at some stage or to have interim assessments? If so, on the basis of what information? I can tell you that the level of complexity of this project is challenging and thus there is a lot that could be presented and discussed. I would be more than happy to contribute to this, but I would need to understand better what the expectations are. Maybe we could even invite the Board (or reps) to such discussion. If such session was well prepared, I think it would be a good initiative to help the various groups better understand the approaches, ongoing work, limitations and chances of what the GNSO is going. Thanks, Thomas Am 05.02.2013 um 23:04 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>:
All,
Many of you will recall that, pre-Toronto, we held regular meetings with both the GAC & the ccNSO at the ICANN meetings. These meetings were scheduled in advance and then we typically discussed or developed topics during the weekend sessions.
In my opinion the meetings were not always that successful for a variety of reasons, one of which could be that we were not necessarily adequately prepared or engaged, or vice cersa In anticipation of meeting one or both of the GAC & the ccNSO in Beijing, we have reached out to them relatively early.
The initial question from the ccNSO has been, tell us what you’d like to discuss / meet about and then we can agree whether or not to meet. I am certain that the GAC will also seek to discuss and agree some topics at least if we are to meet with them.
Personally, I was disappointed not to meet with the GAC in Toronto and feel that it is important to us to do so.
Therefore the following questions arise:
1. Do you support an initiative to meet with the ccNSO in Beijing? 2. If yes, please try to assist with any suggested topics or issues to discuss and potentially collaborate on?
3. Do you support an initiative to meet with the GAC in Beijing? 4. If yes, please try to assist with any suggested topics or issues to discuss and potentially collaborate on?
I look forward to hearing back from you on this as will Mason in terms of his planning for the Beijing meeting.
Thank-you.
Jonathan
Jonathan Robinson Chair ICANN GNSO Council
jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com skype: jonathan.m.r
Thanks Thomas and others for contributions offers of further assistance on this. I agree the burden should be both ways and so we should make that point. That said, we still need to come up with and potentially add substance to our own agenda points. You have started or developed this below so that's helpful. Jonathan From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: 11 February 2013 14:01 To: Jonathan Robinson Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Beijing / Meetings with GAC & ccNSO Jonathan, all, while I agree with most of what has been said by fellow Councillors in response to your request, I have a general question: Is it just us needing to come up with what John calls (rightfully) a compelling agenda or isn't the "burden" on both parties? ad 1 and 2: As far as the ccNSO is concerned, we already had sessions in the past talking about the impact of new gTLDs, but they were quite superficial. While I could not be in favor of repeating statements made before, I guess that a well prepared discussion would be meaningful. Whois (which is closely linked to John's point on the EU data protection laws) might also be a topic of mutual interest. In my view such sessions would need to be carefully prepared - imho best done by reps from both parties taking care of that. I would volunteer to be part of that. In the absence of a good preparation, we might better not put these points on the agenda. ad 3 and 4: I definitely support an initiative to meet with the GAC. As chair of the IOC-RCRC-IGO-INGO PDP WG I would very much welcome the opportunity to discuss this very topic. You will recall that this PDP was tagged a case study by both the Board and the GAC and as a consequence we should consider being an active part in making this case study successful. Our leadership (you or one of the vice chairs :-)) might wish to reach out to both the GAC and the Board to find out what their plan was with the case study? Was the idea to just observe and evaluate jointly or separately after it is over? Was the idea to be more active by engaging in the process at some stage or to have interim assessments? If so, on the basis of what information? I can tell you that the level of complexity of this project is challenging and thus there is a lot that could be presented and discussed. I would be more than happy to contribute to this, but I would need to understand better what the expectations are. Maybe we could even invite the Board (or reps) to such discussion. If such session was well prepared, I think it would be a good initiative to help the various groups better understand the approaches, ongoing work, limitations and chances of what the GNSO is going. Thanks, Thomas Am 05.02.2013 um 23:04 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>: All, Many of you will recall that, pre-Toronto, we held regular meetings with both the GAC & the ccNSO at the ICANN meetings. These meetings were scheduled in advance and then we typically discussed or developed topics during the weekend sessions. In my opinion the meetings were not always that successful for a variety of reasons, one of which could be that we were not necessarily adequately prepared or engaged, or vice cersa In anticipation of meeting one or both of the GAC & the ccNSO in Beijing, we have reached out to them relatively early. The initial question from the ccNSO has been, tell us what you'd like to discuss / meet about and then we can agree whether or not to meet. I am certain that the GAC will also seek to discuss and agree some topics at least if we are to meet with them. Personally, I was disappointed not to meet with the GAC in Toronto and feel that it is important to us to do so. Therefore the following questions arise: 1. Do you support an initiative to meet with the ccNSO in Beijing? 2. If yes, please try to assist with any suggested topics or issues to discuss and potentially collaborate on? 3. Do you support an initiative to meet with the GAC in Beijing? 4. If yes, please try to assist with any suggested topics or issues to discuss and potentially collaborate on? I look forward to hearing back from you on this as will Mason in terms of his planning for the Beijing meeting. Thank-you. Jonathan Jonathan Robinson Chair ICANN GNSO Council jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com skype: jonathan.m.r
Jonathan and all, 1. I support verry much Thomas comment. Yes to both meetings but under the condition that they are well prepared by a concrete and agreed agenda of issues which need discussion, clarification or action. 2. For the meetimng with the ccTLD my question would be how cc`s see in particular the GEO-TLDs (regions, cities). I would be interested also in the argument wether the involved "public authorities" city councils, regional administrations) will have a say in GEO-TLD policies (as thez have in the GAC ccTLD Redelegation Principles Document) and whether this will lead to local/national competition (eventually under different legal regimes). 3. For the GAC meeting: This is a good test for the seriosness of GACs readiness to become "early engaged" in a PDP (here in particular the IG= etc. story). Thanks wolfgang ________________________________ Fra: owner-council@gnso.icann.org på vegne af Thomas Rickert Sendt: ma 11-02-2013 15:01 Til: Jonathan Robinson Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Emne: Re: [council] Beijing / Meetings with GAC & ccNSO Jonathan, all, while I agree with most of what has been said by fellow Councillors in response to your request, I have a general question: Is it just us needing to come up with what John calls (rightfully) a compelling agenda or isn't the "burden" on both parties? ad 1 and 2: As far as the ccNSO is concerned, we already had sessions in the past talking about the impact of new gTLDs, but they were quite superficial. While I could not be in favor of repeating statements made before, I guess that a well prepared discussion would be meaningful. Whois (which is closely linked to John's point on the EU data protection laws) might also be a topic of mutual interest. In my view such sessions would need to be carefully prepared - imho best done by reps from both parties taking care of that. I would volunteer to be part of that. In the absence of a good preparation, we might better not put these points on the agenda. ad 3 and 4: I definitely support an initiative to meet with the GAC. As chair of the IOC-RCRC-IGO-INGO PDP WG I would very much welcome the opportunity to discuss this very topic. You will recall that this PDP was tagged a case study by both the Board and the GAC and as a consequence we should consider being an active part in making this case study successful. Our leadership (you or one of the vice chairs :-)) might wish to reach out to both the GAC and the Board to find out what their plan was with the case study? Was the idea to just observe and evaluate jointly or separately after it is over? Was the idea to be more active by engaging in the process at some stage or to have interim assessments? If so, on the basis of what information? I can tell you that the level of complexity of this project is challenging and thus there is a lot that could be presented and discussed. I would be more than happy to contribute to this, but I would need to understand better what the expectations are. Maybe we could even invite the Board (or reps) to such discussion. If such session was well prepared, I think it would be a good initiative to help the various groups better understand the approaches, ongoing work, limitations and chances of what the GNSO is going. Thanks, Thomas Am 05.02.2013 um 23:04 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>: All, Many of you will recall that, pre-Toronto, we held regular meetings with both the GAC & the ccNSO at the ICANN meetings. These meetings were scheduled in advance and then we typically discussed or developed topics during the weekend sessions. In my opinion the meetings were not always that successful for a variety of reasons, one of which could be that we were not necessarily adequately prepared or engaged, or vice cersa In anticipation of meeting one or both of the GAC & the ccNSO in Beijing, we have reached out to them relatively early. The initial question from the ccNSO has been, tell us what you'd like to discuss / meet about and then we can agree whether or not to meet. I am certain that the GAC will also seek to discuss and agree some topics at least if we are to meet with them. Personally, I was disappointed not to meet with the GAC in Toronto and feel that it is important to us to do so. Therefore the following questions arise: 1. Do you support an initiative to meet with the ccNSO in Beijing? 2. If yes, please try to assist with any suggested topics or issues to discuss and potentially collaborate on? 3. Do you support an initiative to meet with the GAC in Beijing? 4. If yes, please try to assist with any suggested topics or issues to discuss and potentially collaborate on? I look forward to hearing back from you on this as will Mason in terms of his planning for the Beijing meeting. Thank-you. Jonathan Jonathan Robinson Chair ICANN GNSO Council jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com <mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> skype: jonathan.m.r
+1 to all that. Do we know if there are a couple of interested people on ccNSO and GAC to discuss ideas for a draft agenda with? If we could get a quick ad hoc group going, we could move on quite quickly. Also - and apologies if I've missed anything on this up-thread - is there a dedicated slot in the Beijing schedule for this session already? Maria On 11 February 2013 15:56, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
Jonathan and all,
1. I support verry much Thomas comment. Yes to both meetings but under the condition that they are well prepared by a concrete and agreed agenda of issues which need discussion, clarification or action.
2. For the meetimng with the ccTLD my question would be how cc`s see in particular the GEO-TLDs (regions, cities). I would be interested also in the argument wether the involved "public authorities" city councils, regional administrations) will have a say in GEO-TLD policies (as thez have in the GAC ccTLD Redelegation Principles Document) and whether this will lead to local/national competition (eventually under different legal regimes).
3. For the GAC meeting: This is a good test for the seriosness of GACs readiness to become "early engaged" in a PDP (here in particular the IG= etc. story).
Thanks
wolfgang
________________________________
Fra: owner-council@gnso.icann.org på vegne af Thomas Rickert Sendt: ma 11-02-2013 15:01 Til: Jonathan Robinson Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Emne: Re: [council] Beijing / Meetings with GAC & ccNSO
Jonathan, all, while I agree with most of what has been said by fellow Councillors in response to your request, I have a general question:
Is it just us needing to come up with what John calls (rightfully) a compelling agenda or isn't the "burden" on both parties?
ad 1 and 2: As far as the ccNSO is concerned, we already had sessions in the past talking about the impact of new gTLDs, but they were quite superficial. While I could not be in favor of repeating statements made before, I guess that a well prepared discussion would be meaningful. Whois (which is closely linked to John's point on the EU data protection laws) might also be a topic of mutual interest.
In my view such sessions would need to be carefully prepared - imho best done by reps from both parties taking care of that. I would volunteer to be part of that. In the absence of a good preparation, we might better not put these points on the agenda.
ad 3 and 4: I definitely support an initiative to meet with the GAC.
As chair of the IOC-RCRC-IGO-INGO PDP WG I would very much welcome the opportunity to discuss this very topic. You will recall that this PDP was tagged a case study by both the Board and the GAC and as a consequence we should consider being an active part in making this case study successful. Our leadership (you or one of the vice chairs :-)) might wish to reach out to both the GAC and the Board to find out what their plan was with the case study? Was the idea to just observe and evaluate jointly or separately after it is over? Was the idea to be more active by engaging in the process at some stage or to have interim assessments? If so, on the basis of what information? I can tell you that the level of complexity of this project is challenging and thus there is a lot that could be presented and discussed.
I would be more than happy to contribute to this, but I would need to understand better what the expectations are. Maybe we could even invite the Board (or reps) to such discussion. If such session was well prepared, I think it would be a good initiative to help the various groups better understand the approaches, ongoing work, limitations and chances of what the GNSO is going.
Thanks, Thomas
Am 05.02.2013 um 23:04 schrieb Jonathan Robinson < jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>:
All,
Many of you will recall that, pre-Toronto, we held regular meetings with both the GAC & the ccNSO at the ICANN meetings. These meetings were scheduled in advance and then we typically discussed or developed topics during the weekend sessions.
In my opinion the meetings were not always that successful for a variety of reasons, one of which could be that we were not necessarily adequately prepared or engaged, or vice cersa In anticipation of meeting one or both of the GAC & the ccNSO in Beijing, we have reached out to them relatively early.
The initial question from the ccNSO has been, tell us what you'd like to discuss / meet about and then we can agree whether or not to meet. I am certain that the GAC will also seek to discuss and agree some topics at least if we are to meet with them.
Personally, I was disappointed not to meet with the GAC in Toronto and feel that it is important to us to do so.
Therefore the following questions arise:
1. Do you support an initiative to meet with the ccNSO in Beijing? 2. If yes, please try to assist with any suggested topics or issues to discuss and potentially collaborate on?
3. Do you support an initiative to meet with the GAC in Beijing? 4. If yes, please try to assist with any suggested topics or issues to discuss and potentially collaborate on?
I look forward to hearing back from you on this as will Mason in terms of his planning for the Beijing meeting.
Thank-you.
Jonathan
Jonathan Robinson Chair ICANN GNSO Council
jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com <mailto: jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> skype: jonathan.m.r
Dear All, I ecco Wolfgang and Jonathan and strongly support to meet with both GAC and the ccNSO. As to the ccNSO, many of the issues we discuss within GNSO also naturally relates to the work that has been done (or should have been considered) in many ccTLDs – especially all of those that are also advertised or at least used as “generic”, such as .it, .nu, .tv, etc, etc. One point to “sell in” our meeting with ccNSO is that we can in fact learn from each other, and perhaps therewith also win time on certain projects and (from both sides) avoid mistakes. Best, Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> <http://www.fenixlegal.eu/> NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, <http://www.fenixlegal.eu/> Thank you On 11 feb 2013 16:56 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
Jonathan and all, 1. I support verry much Thomas comment. Yes to both meetings but under the condition that they are well prepared by a concrete and agreed agenda of issues which need discussion, clarification or action. 2. For the meetimng with the ccTLD my question would be how cc`s see in particular the GEO-TLDs (regions, cities). I would be interested also in the argument wether the involved "public authorities" city councils, regional administrations) will have a say in GEO-TLD policies (as thez have in the GAC ccTLD Redelegation Principles Document) and whether this will lead to local/national competition (eventually under different legal regimes). 3. For the GAC meeting: This is a good test for the seriosness of GACs readiness to become "early engaged" in a PDP (here in particular the IG= etc. story). Thanks wolfgang ________________________________ Fra: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> på vegne af Thomas Rickert Sendt: ma 11-02-2013 15:01 Til: Jonathan Robinson Cc: <council@gnso.icann.org> Emne: Re: [council] Beijing / Meetings with GAC & ccNSO Jonathan, all, while I agree with most of what has been said by fellow Councillors in response to your request, I have a general question: Is it just us needing to come up with what John calls (rightfully) a compelling agenda or isn't the "burden" on both parties? ad 1 and 2: As far as the ccNSO is concerned, we already had sessions in the past talking about the impact of new gTLDs, but they were quite superficial. While I could not be in favor of repeating statements made before, I guess that a well prepared discussion would be meaningful. Whois (which is closely linked to John's point on the EU data protection laws) might also be a topic of mutual interest. In my view such sessions would need to be carefully prepared - imho best done by reps from both parties taking care of that. I would volunteer to be part of that. In the absence of a good preparation, we might better not put these points on the agenda. ad 3 and 4: I definitely support an initiative to meet with the GAC. As chair of the IOC-RCRC-IGO-INGO PDP WG I would very much welcome the opportunity to discuss this very topic. You will recall that this PDP was tagged a case study by both the Board and the GAC and as a consequence we should consider being an active part in making this case study successful. Our leadership (you or one of the vice chairs :-)) might wish to reach out to both the GAC and the Board to find out what their plan was with the case study? Was the idea to just observe and evaluate jointly or separately after it is over? Was the idea to be more active by engaging in the process at some stage or to have interim assessments? If so, on the basis of what information? I can tell you that the level of complexity of this project is challenging and thus there is a lot that could be presented and discussed. I would be more than happy to contribute to this, but I would need to understand better what the expectations are. Maybe we could even invite the Board (or reps) to such discussion. If such session was well prepared, I think it would be a good initiative to help the various groups better understand the approaches, ongoing work, limitations and chances of what the GNSO is going. Thanks, Thomas Am 05.02.2013 um 23:04 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>: All, Many of you will recall that, pre-Toronto, we held regular meetings with both the GAC & the ccNSO at the ICANN meetings. These meetings were scheduled in advance and then we typically discussed or developed topics during the weekend sessions. In my opinion the meetings were not always that successful for a variety of reasons, one of which could be that we were not necessarily adequately prepared or engaged, or vice cersa In anticipation of meeting one or both of the GAC & the ccNSO in Beijing, we have reached out to them relatively early. The initial question from the ccNSO has been, tell us what you'd like to discuss / meet about and then we can agree whether or not to meet. I am certain that the GAC will also seek to discuss and agree some topics at least if we are to meet with them. Personally, I was disappointed not to meet with the GAC in Toronto and feel that it is important to us to do so. Therefore the following questions arise: 1. Do you support an initiative to meet with the ccNSO in Beijing? 2. If yes, please try to assist with any suggested topics or issues to discuss and potentially collaborate on? 3. Do you support an initiative to meet with the GAC in Beijing? 4. If yes, please try to assist with any suggested topics or issues to discuss and potentially collaborate on? I look forward to hearing back from you on this as will Mason in terms of his planning for the Beijing meeting. Thank-you. Jonathan Jonathan Robinson Chair ICANN GNSO Council <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> <mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> skype: jonathan.m.r
participants (7)
-
"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" -
john＠crediblecontext.com -
Jonathan Robinson -
Maria Farrell -
Mason Cole -
Petter Rindforth -
Thomas Rickert