Councillors, I would like to strongly request your help in coming up with two things in preparation for our Prague week: 1. Topics for our interactions with the Board/GAC and ccNSO and 2. Ideas for sessions for our work weekend. As added context, I should say that the Council leadership is under greater pressure than usual to provide this earlier than usual (Staff have been put under pressure due to the delay in publishing the CR agenda that people complained about there). I should also add that I have asked Jeff, who has kindly volunteered (or was kindly volunteered by me, whichever way you want to see it ;) ) to look after our Prague agenda, to ensure that we cut down on pure working lunch sessions. I find these sessions are an organizational nightmare as people need time to have their lunch, which cost down on the time afforded to the topic we are scheduled to work on. So in short, please make a greater effort than usual to provide ideas for 1 and 2 above. These sessions, both our interactions with other groups and our own working sessions, should be the result of Council-wide deliberations so that they are truly effective and have greater meaning for the Council as a whole. Thanks for your help in this endeavor. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT
Stéphane, I would like to discuss with the Board how ICANN's communication could be improved in the light of Fridays, URS and the TAS Glitch. For GAC I would like to discuss in what areas the GAC might wish to co-operate with the GNSO so we can prepare / plan resources. Also I would like to discuss with the GAC at a high level (if possible) how the Council and the GAC can help manage expectations of both the public bodies (especially LEA) and industry when it comes to fighting abuse. With the ccNSO I guess it would make sense to pick up the discussion what effects the huge number of registries might have on our work and structure now that we know we should expect something in the range of 2k new TLDs. In response to your question no. 2, there should be some time reserved for internal discussion in preparation of above subjects - should the Council decide to pick up these ideas. Thanks, Thomas Am 11.05.2012 um 10:05 schrieb Stéphane Van Gelder:
Councillors,
I would like to strongly request your help in coming up with two things in preparation for our Prague week:
1. Topics for our interactions with the Board/GAC and ccNSO and 2. Ideas for sessions for our work weekend.
As added context, I should say that the Council leadership is under greater pressure than usual to provide this earlier than usual (Staff have been put under pressure due to the delay in publishing the CR agenda that people complained about there).
I should also add that I have asked Jeff, who has kindly volunteered (or was kindly volunteered by me, whichever way you want to see it ;) ) to look after our Prague agenda, to ensure that we cut down on pure working lunch sessions. I find these sessions are an organizational nightmare as people need time to have their lunch, which cost down on the time afforded to the topic we are scheduled to work on.
So in short, please make a greater effort than usual to provide ideas for 1 and 2 above. These sessions, both our interactions with other groups and our own working sessions, should be the result of Council-wide deliberations so that they are truly effective and have greater meaning for the Council as a whole.
Thanks for your help in this endeavor.
Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT
___________________________________________________________ Thomas Rickert, Rechtsanwalt Schollmeyer & Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm) Geschäftsführer / CEO: Torsten Schollmeyer, Thomas Rickert HRB 9262, AG Bonn Büro / Office Bonn: Kaiserplatz 7-9, 53113 Bonn, Germany Phone: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 0 Büro / Office Frankfurt a.M.: Savignystraße 43, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany Phone: +49 (0)69 714 021 - 56 Zentralfax: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 66 mailto: rickert@anwaelte.de skype-id: trickert web: www.anwaelte.de
Thanks Thomas. Stéphane Le 11 mai 2012 à 11:08, Thomas Rickert a écrit :
Stéphane, I would like to discuss with the Board how ICANN's communication could be improved in the light of Fridays, URS and the TAS Glitch.
For GAC I would like to discuss in what areas the GAC might wish to co-operate with the GNSO so we can prepare / plan resources. Also I would like to discuss with the GAC at a high level (if possible) how the Council and the GAC can help manage expectations of both the public bodies (especially LEA) and industry when it comes to fighting abuse.
With the ccNSO I guess it would make sense to pick up the discussion what effects the huge number of registries might have on our work and structure now that we know we should expect something in the range of 2k new TLDs.
In response to your question no. 2, there should be some time reserved for internal discussion in preparation of above subjects - should the Council decide to pick up these ideas.
Thanks, Thomas
Am 11.05.2012 um 10:05 schrieb Stéphane Van Gelder:
Councillors,
I would like to strongly request your help in coming up with two things in preparation for our Prague week:
1. Topics for our interactions with the Board/GAC and ccNSO and 2. Ideas for sessions for our work weekend.
As added context, I should say that the Council leadership is under greater pressure than usual to provide this earlier than usual (Staff have been put under pressure due to the delay in publishing the CR agenda that people complained about there).
I should also add that I have asked Jeff, who has kindly volunteered (or was kindly volunteered by me, whichever way you want to see it ;) ) to look after our Prague agenda, to ensure that we cut down on pure working lunch sessions. I find these sessions are an organizational nightmare as people need time to have their lunch, which cost down on the time afforded to the topic we are scheduled to work on.
So in short, please make a greater effort than usual to provide ideas for 1 and 2 above. These sessions, both our interactions with other groups and our own working sessions, should be the result of Council-wide deliberations so that they are truly effective and have greater meaning for the Council as a whole.
Thanks for your help in this endeavor.
Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT
___________________________________________________________ Thomas Rickert, Rechtsanwalt Schollmeyer & Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm) Geschäftsführer / CEO: Torsten Schollmeyer, Thomas Rickert HRB 9262, AG Bonn
Büro / Office Bonn: Kaiserplatz 7-9, 53113 Bonn, Germany Phone: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 0
Büro / Office Frankfurt a.M.: Savignystraße 43, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany Phone: +49 (0)69 714 021 - 56
Zentralfax: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 66
mailto: rickert@anwaelte.de skype-id: trickert web: www.anwaelte.de
Hi, Thomas' list looks good (though I should say I've not consulted NCSG colleagues and members so this is a somewhat personal view). For the Board, I assume our concerns center on transparency as well as effective communication. Do we want to ask them what else they are considering - whether in relation to changing formats or duration of ICANN meetings, or in holding different types of meetings (per the budget) - that the GNSO can provide input on? For the GAC, do we want to discuss their views on the IGO issue, especially as the IOC has just submitted a Request for Reconsideration of the Board's recent decision not to change the AGB? Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> From: Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> To:Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> CC:GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 5/11/2012 5:10 AM Subject: Re: [council] Prague - please read! Stéphane, I would like to discuss with the Board how ICANN's communication could be improved in the light of Fridays, URS and the TAS Glitch. For GAC I would like to discuss in what areas the GAC might wish to co-operate with the GNSO so we can prepare / plan resources. Also I would like to discuss with the GAC at a high level (if possible) how the Council and the GAC can help manage expectations of both the public bodies (especially LEA) and industry when it comes to fighting abuse. With the ccNSO I guess it would make sense to pick up the discussion what effects the huge number of registries might have on our work and structure now that we know we should expect something in the range of 2k new TLDs. In response to your question no. 2, there should be some time reserved for internal discussion in preparation of above subjects - should the Council decide to pick up these ideas. Thanks, Thomas Am 11.05.2012 um 10:05 schrieb Stéphane Van Gelder: Councillors, I would like to strongly request your help in coming up with two things in preparation for our Prague week: 1. Topics for our interactions with the Board/GAC and ccNSO and 2. Ideas for sessions for our work weekend. As added context, I should say that the Council leadership is under greater pressure than usual to provide this earlier than usual (Staff have been put under pressure due to the delay in publishing the CR agenda that people complained about there). I should also add that I have asked Jeff, who has kindly volunteered (or was kindly volunteered by me, whichever way you want to see it ;) ) to look after our Prague agenda, to ensure that we cut down on pure working lunch sessions. I find these sessions are an organizational nightmare as people need time to have their lunch, which cost down on the time afforded to the topic we are scheduled to work on. So in short, please make a greater effort than usual to provide ideas for 1 and 2 above. These sessions, both our interactions with other groups and our own working sessions, should be the result of Council-wide deliberations so that they are truly effective and have greater meaning for the Council as a whole. Thanks for your help in this endeavor. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT ___________________________________________________________ Thomas Rickert, Rechtsanwalt Schollmeyer & Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm) Geschäftsführer / CEO: Torsten Schollmeyer, Thomas Rickert HRB 9262, AG Bonn Büro / Office Bonn: Kaiserplatz 7-9, 53113 Bonn, Germany Phone: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 0 Büro / Office Frankfurt a.M.: Savignystraße 43, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany Phone: +49 (0)69 714 021 - 56 Zentralfax: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 66 mailto: rickert@anwaelte.de skype-id: trickert web: www.anwaelte.de
To follow up Mary’s e-mail, here is the reconsideration request she is referring to. I agree the IGOs should be on the GAC discussion (though not sure the reconsideration request is of any relevance to the GAC). Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 2:07 PM Cc: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Prague - please read! Hi, Thomas' list looks good (though I should say I've not consulted NCSG colleagues and members so this is a somewhat personal view). For the Board, I assume our concerns center on transparency as well as effective communication. Do we want to ask them what else they are considering - whether in relation to changing formats or duration of ICANN meetings, or in holding different types of meetings (per the budget) - that the GNSO can provide input on? For the GAC, do we want to discuss their views on the IGO issue, especially as the IOC has just submitted a Request for Reconsideration of the Board's recent decision not to change the AGB? Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong@law.unh.edu<mailto:mary.wong@law.unh.edu> Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
From:
Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>> To: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>> CC: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Date: 5/11/2012 5:10 AM Subject: Re: [council] Prague - please read! Stéphane, I would like to discuss with the Board how ICANN's communication could be improved in the light of Fridays, URS and the TAS Glitch. For GAC I would like to discuss in what areas the GAC might wish to co-operate with the GNSO so we can prepare / plan resources. Also I would like to discuss with the GAC at a high level (if possible) how the Council and the GAC can help manage expectations of both the public bodies (especially LEA) and industry when it comes to fighting abuse. With the ccNSO I guess it would make sense to pick up the discussion what effects the huge number of registries might have on our work and structure now that we know we should expect something in the range of 2k new TLDs. In response to your question no. 2, there should be some time reserved for internal discussion in preparation of above subjects - should the Council decide to pick up these ideas. Thanks, Thomas Am 11.05.2012 um 10:05 schrieb Stéphane Van Gelder: Councillors, I would like to strongly request your help in coming up with two things in preparation for our Prague week: 1. Topics for our interactions with the Board/GAC and ccNSO and 2. Ideas for sessions for our work weekend. As added context, I should say that the Council leadership is under greater pressure than usual to provide this earlier than usual (Staff have been put under pressure due to the delay in publishing the CR agenda that people complained about there). I should also add that I have asked Jeff, who has kindly volunteered (or was kindly volunteered by me, whichever way you want to see it ;) ) to look after our Prague agenda, to ensure that we cut down on pure working lunch sessions. I find these sessions are an organizational nightmare as people need time to have their lunch, which cost down on the time afforded to the topic we are scheduled to work on. So in short, please make a greater effort than usual to provide ideas for 1 and 2 above. These sessions, both our interactions with other groups and our own working sessions, should be the result of Council-wide deliberations so that they are truly effective and have greater meaning for the Council as a whole. Thanks for your help in this endeavor. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT ___________________________________________________________ Thomas Rickert, Rechtsanwalt Schollmeyer & Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm) Geschäftsführer / CEO: Torsten Schollmeyer, Thomas Rickert HRB 9262, AG Bonn Büro / Office Bonn: Kaiserplatz 7-9, 53113 Bonn, Germany Phone: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 0 Büro / Office Frankfurt a.M.: Savignystraße 43, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany Phone: +49 (0)69 714 021 - 56 Zentralfax: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 66 mailto: rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de> skype-id: trickert web: www.anwaelte.de<http://www.anwaelte.de>
Thanks, Jeff - sorry for lack of clarity but my reference to the reconsideration request was more of an FYI to the Council in thinking through whether the IGO issue should be raised with the GAC. Actually, I'm a little disturbed by a number of assertions, assumptions and inaccuracies in the reconsideration request. For example, reference is made interchangeably to Olympic "names", "marks" and the "goodwill of the Olympic movement" as all protected by law. Some of these terms are narrower and more specific than others, and while each may be protected by some national laws, we don't at this point know that the broadest term (goodwill of the movement) is protected by how many countries' laws (especially since the international treaty in question protects the Olympic "symbol" only). Also, reference is made to the fact that "the GAC and the GNSO" worked out the recommendations adopted by the GNSO Council. As we know, the GAC does not participate in any WG or DT in its own right, nor do individual GAC members do so as such (i.e. they do not represent their respective countries or the GAC as a whole). There's also an implicit assumption that "consensus" and "majority vote" of the Council mean the same thing (i.e. both terms are used in the appeal). Except for the first point about names versus marks versus the entire Olympic movement, which alarms me as an IP lawyer about the broad extent of trademark protection that seems to be claimed, I don't think the other two points were anything other than inadvertent inaccuracies. I wanted, however, to raise them all with you and will likely do so with the DT as well. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> To:"mary.wong@law.unh.edu" <mary.wong@law.unh.edu> CC:GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 5/11/2012 2:46 PM Subject: RE: [council] Prague - please read! To follow up Mary’s e-mail, here is the reconsideration request she is referring to. I agree the IGOs should be on the GAC discussion (though not sure the reconsideration request is of any relevance to the GAC). Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 2:07 PM Cc: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Prague - please read! Hi, Thomas' list looks good (though I should say I've not consulted NCSG colleagues and members so this is a somewhat personal view). For the Board, I assume our concerns center on transparency as well as effective communication. Do we want to ask them what else they are considering - whether in relation to changing formats or duration of ICANN meetings, or in holding different types of meetings (per the budget) - that the GNSO can provide input on? For the GAC, do we want to discuss their views on the IGO issue, especially as the IOC has just submitted a Request for Reconsideration of the Board's recent decision not to change the AGB? Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
From: Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> To: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> CC: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 5/11/2012 5:10 AM Subject: Re: [council] Prague - please read! Stéphane, I would like to discuss with the Board how ICANN's communication could be improved in the light of Fridays, URS and the TAS Glitch. For GAC I would like to discuss in what areas the GAC might wish to co-operate with the GNSO so we can prepare / plan resources. Also I would like to discuss with the GAC at a high level (if possible) how the Council and the GAC can help manage expectations of both the public bodies (especially LEA) and industry when it comes to fighting abuse. With the ccNSO I guess it would make sense to pick up the discussion what effects the huge number of registries might have on our work and structure now that we know we should expect something in the range of 2k new TLDs. In response to your question no. 2, there should be some time reserved for internal discussion in preparation of above subjects - should the Council decide to pick up these ideas. Thanks, Thomas Am 11.05.2012 um 10:05 schrieb Stéphane Van Gelder: Councillors, I would like to strongly request your help in coming up with two things in preparation for our Prague week: 1. Topics for our interactions with the Board/GAC and ccNSO and 2. Ideas for sessions for our work weekend. As added context, I should say that the Council leadership is under greater pressure than usual to provide this earlier than usual (Staff have been put under pressure due to the delay in publishing the CR agenda that people complained about there). I should also add that I have asked Jeff, who has kindly volunteered (or was kindly volunteered by me, whichever way you want to see it ;) ) to look after our Prague agenda, to ensure that we cut down on pure working lunch sessions. I find these sessions are an organizational nightmare as people need time to have their lunch, which cost down on the time afforded to the topic we are scheduled to work on. So in short, please make a greater effort than usual to provide ideas for 1 and 2 above. These sessions, both our interactions with other groups and our own working sessions, should be the result of Council-wide deliberations so that they are truly effective and have greater meaning for the Council as a whole. Thanks for your help in this endeavor. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT ___________________________________________________________ Thomas Rickert, Rechtsanwalt Schollmeyer & Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm) Geschäftsführer / CEO: Torsten Schollmeyer, Thomas Rickert HRB 9262, AG Bonn Büro / Office Bonn: Kaiserplatz 7-9, 53113 Bonn, Germany Phone: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 0 Büro / Office Frankfurt a.M.: Savignystraße 43, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany Phone: +49 (0)69 714 021 - 56 Zentralfax: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 66 mailto: rickert@anwaelte.de skype-id: trickert web: www.anwaelte.de
Stéphane, For me personally I'd like to see one specific discussions with the Board regarding the newly-estabilshed New gTLD Committee and how does it function. How can GNSO help / liaise with this committee and collaborate? I agree with Thomas' suggestion on expansion of membership and think this could be listed as one of the topics with the Board. For the lunch part I do not have strong preference -- but appreciate that lunch is always a useful break time for brain, and allows stomach to be in charge :-) If having meal / beverage alongside with the meeting is a trouble, maybe the idea of creating the "GNSO Lounge" could be helpful. Similar to the ICANN Staff / Board lounge, which allows members to have meals (b'fast and lunch with definite schedule) and beverages (all week), and of course provide space for informal meetings (different constituency can sign up for it) and social functions. I am not suggesting to do it in Prague but could be an idea worthy to explore and help manage question 2. Ching On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder < stephane.vangelder@indom.com> wrote:
Councillors,
I would like to strongly request your help in coming up with two things in preparation for our Prague week:
1. Topics for our interactions with the Board/GAC and ccNSO and 2. Ideas for sessions for our work weekend.
As added context, I should say that the Council leadership is under greater pressure than usual to provide this earlier than usual (Staff have been put under pressure due to the delay in publishing the CR agenda that people complained about there).
I should also add that I have asked Jeff, who has kindly volunteered (or was kindly volunteered by me, whichever way you want to see it ;) ) to look after our Prague agenda, to ensure that we cut down on pure working lunch sessions. I find these sessions are an organizational nightmare as people need time to have their lunch, which cost down on the time afforded to the topic we are scheduled to work on.
So in short, please make a greater effort than usual to provide ideas for 1 and 2 above. These sessions, both our interactions with other groups and our own working sessions, should be the result of Council-wide deliberations so that they are truly effective and have greater meaning for the Council as a whole.
Thanks for your help in this endeavor.
Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT
-- Ching CHIAO Vice President, DotAsia Organisation LTD. Chair, Asia Pacific Networking Group Member of ICANN GNSO Council & RySG ===================================== Email: chiao@registry.asia Skype: chiao_rw Mobile: +886-918211372 | +86-13520187032 www.registry.asia | www.apngcamp.asia www.facebook.com/ching.chiao
Thanks for the request Stephane, Suggested topic for discussion with the GAC: how the GAC and GNSO can improve their joint working relationship? Are our processes for joint engagement on areas of mutual interest adequate - can they be improved? A particular focus on efficiency and speed would be useful. For example, would an informal joint standing committee of some kind be helpful? Such an informal group could be a useful forum for initial discussion of the kinds of questions Thomas raised, providing some support for more formal joint discussions - rather than being issue or subject dependent. This could also be a topic for our own working session. For the ccNSO - discussion on how we can engage around areas of mutual interest such as emerging issues in the development of policies for law enforcement requests these are my own thoughts, and I have also passed the request on to NSCG members asking for a prompt response. Kind regards Joy -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, 11 May 2012 8:06 p.m. To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Prague - please read! Councillors, I would like to strongly request your help in coming up with two things in preparation for our Prague week: 1. Topics for our interactions with the Board/GAC and ccNSO and 2. Ideas for sessions for our work weekend. As added context, I should say that the Council leadership is under greater pressure than usual to provide this earlier than usual (Staff have been put under pressure due to the delay in publishing the CR agenda that people complained about there). I should also add that I have asked Jeff, who has kindly volunteered (or was kindly volunteered by me, whichever way you want to see it ;) ) to look after our Prague agenda, to ensure that we cut down on pure working lunch sessions. I find these sessions are an organizational nightmare as people need time to have their lunch, which cost down on the time afforded to the topic we are scheduled to work on. So in short, please make a greater effort than usual to provide ideas for 1 and 2 above. These sessions, both our interactions with other groups and our own working sessions, should be the result of Council-wide deliberations so that they are truly effective and have greater meaning for the Council as a whole. Thanks for your help in this endeavor. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT
Thanks to Thomas for picking up the discussion and to others for pursuing it. These proposals are great. I have summarized them in the list below. Board How could ICANN's communication be improved in the light of Fridays, URS and the TAS Glitch? What else is the Board considering - whether in relation to changing formats or duration of ICANN meetings, or in holding different types of meetings (per the budget) - that the GNSO can provide input on? Regarding the newly-estabilshed New gTLD Committee and how does it function. How can GNSO help / liaise with this committee and collaborate? GAC In what areas might the GAC wish to co-operate with the GNSO so we can prepare / plan resources? How can the Council and the GAC can help manage expectations of both the public bodies (especially LEA) and industry when it comes to fighting abuse? Discuss the GAC views on the IGO issue, especially as the IOC has just submitted a Request for Reconsideration of the Board's recent decision not to change the AGB. How can the GAC and GNSO can improve their joint working relationship? Are our processes for joint engagement on areas of mutual interest adequate - can they be improved? A particular focus on efficiency and speed would be useful. For example, would an informal joint standing committee of some kind be helpful? ccNSO Pick up the discussion what effects the huge number of registries might have on our work and structure now that we know we should expect something in the range of 2k new TLDs. Discussion on how we can engage around areas of mutual interest such as emerging issues in the development of policies for law enforcement requests. Others, please help continue to build this list, especially with regards to our interaction with the ccNSO. All, please also provide suggestions on what weekend sessions you'd like to see. I suggest we let the above lists build up a little more and then move into a discussion of which topics we actually all feel comfortable with and want to forward to the respective groups. Thanks again. Stéphane Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Le 12 mai 2012 à 05:03, Joy Liddicoat a écrit :
Thanks for the request Stephane, Suggested topic for discussion with the GAC: how the GAC and GNSO can improve their joint working relationship? Are our processes for joint engagement on areas of mutual interest adequate - can they be improved? A particular focus on efficiency and speed would be useful. For example, would an informal joint standing committee of some kind be helpful? Such an informal group could be a useful forum for initial discussion of the kinds of questions Thomas raised, providing some support for more formal joint discussions - rather than being issue or subject dependent. This could also be a topic for our own working session. For the ccNSO - discussion on how we can engage around areas of mutual interest such as emerging issues in the development of policies for law enforcement requests these are my own thoughts, and I have also passed the request on to NSCG members asking for a prompt response. Kind regards
Joy -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, 11 May 2012 8:06 p.m. To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Prague - please read!
Councillors,
I would like to strongly request your help in coming up with two things in preparation for our Prague week:
1. Topics for our interactions with the Board/GAC and ccNSO and 2. Ideas for sessions for our work weekend.
As added context, I should say that the Council leadership is under greater pressure than usual to provide this earlier than usual (Staff have been put under pressure due to the delay in publishing the CR agenda that people complained about there).
I should also add that I have asked Jeff, who has kindly volunteered (or was kindly volunteered by me, whichever way you want to see it ;) ) to look after our Prague agenda, to ensure that we cut down on pure working lunch sessions. I find these sessions are an organizational nightmare as people need time to have their lunch, which cost down on the time afforded to the topic we are scheduled to work on.
So in short, please make a greater effort than usual to provide ideas for 1 and 2 above. These sessions, both our interactions with other groups and our own working sessions, should be the result of Council-wide deliberations so that they are truly effective and have greater meaning for the Council as a whole.
Thanks for your help in this endeavor.
Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT
From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>> To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Prague - please read! Thanks to Thomas for picking up the discussion and to others for pursuing it. These proposals are great. I have summarized them in the list below. Board How could ICANN's communication be improved in the light of Fridays, URS and the TAS Glitch? What else is the Board considering - whether in relation to changing formats or duration of ICANN meetings, or in holding different types of meetings (per the budget) - that the GNSO can provide input on? Regarding the newly-estabilshed New gTLD Committee and how does it function. How can GNSO help / liaise with this committee and collaborate? GAC In what areas might the GAC wish to co-operate with the GNSO so we can prepare / plan resources? How can the Council and the GAC can help manage expectations of both the public bodies (especially LEA) and industry when it comes to fighting abuse? Discuss the GAC views on the IGO issue, especially as the IOC has just submitted a Request for Reconsideration of the Board's recent decision not to change the AGB. How can the GAC and GNSO can improve their joint working relationship? Are our processes for joint engagement on areas of mutual interest adequate - can they be improved? A particular focus on efficiency and speed would be useful. For example, would an informal joint standing committee of some kind be helpful? ccNSO Pick up the discussion what effects the huge number of registries might have on our work and structure now that we know we should expect something in the range of 2k new TLDs. Discussion on how we can engage around areas of mutual interest such as emerging issues in the development of policies for law enforcement requests. Others, please help continue to build this list, especially with regards to our interaction with the ccNSO. All, please also provide suggestions on what weekend sessions you'd like to see. I suggest we let the above lists build up a little more and then move into a discussion of which topics we actually all feel comfortable with and want to forward to the respective groups. Thanks again. Stéphane Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Le 12 mai 2012 à 05:03, Joy Liddicoat a écrit : Thanks for the request Stephane, Suggested topic for discussion with the GAC: how the GAC and GNSO can improve their joint working relationship? Are our processes for joint engagement on areas of mutual interest adequate - can they be improved? A particular focus on efficiency and speed would be useful. For example, would an informal joint standing committee of some kind be helpful? Such an informal group could be a useful forum for initial discussion of the kinds of questions Thomas raised, providing some support for more formal joint discussions - rather than being issue or subject dependent. This could also be a topic for our own working session. For the ccNSO - discussion on how we can engage around areas of mutual interest such as emerging issues in the development of policies for law enforcement requests these are my own thoughts, and I have also passed the request on to NSCG members asking for a prompt response. Kind regards Joy -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, 11 May 2012 8:06 p.m. To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Prague - please read! Councillors, I would like to strongly request your help in coming up with two things in preparation for our Prague week: 1. Topics for our interactions with the Board/GAC and ccNSO and 2. Ideas for sessions for our work weekend. As added context, I should say that the Council leadership is under greater pressure than usual to provide this earlier than usual (Staff have been put under pressure due to the delay in publishing the CR agenda that people complained about there). I should also add that I have asked Jeff, who has kindly volunteered (or was kindly volunteered by me, whichever way you want to see it ;) ) to look after our Prague agenda, to ensure that we cut down on pure working lunch sessions. I find these sessions are an organizational nightmare as people need time to have their lunch, which cost down on the time afforded to the topic we are scheduled to work on. So in short, please make a greater effort than usual to provide ideas for 1 and 2 above. These sessions, both our interactions with other groups and our own working sessions, should be the result of Council-wide deliberations so that they are truly effective and have greater meaning for the Council as a whole. Thanks for your help in this endeavor. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT
participants (7)
-
Ching Chiao -
Joy Liddicoat -
Marika Konings -
Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu -
Neuman, Jeff -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
Thomas Rickert