Re: [council] Informal conversation
Hmm ... isn't this one very good reason why we ought to have GNSO-GAC liaisons? Also, while I understand the difficulty the GAC may have with nit having one or two people represent the GAC formally, should we consider inviting them to appoint an observer or liaison to the task force or WG that Jeff is leading? Thanks for the prompt action and reporting back, Stéphane. Cheers Mary "Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com>" <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> wrote: All, As we discussed during today's wrap-up, I had an informal conversation with the GAC. I passed along the message that there was disappointment at the GAC's apparent lack of desire for a common effort on the IOC and RC names. The answer was that the GAC remains extremely challenged when it comes to participating in joint efforts of this kind. There are workload issues first and foremost for government reps, but also because of the unique nature of the GAC it is difficult for any GAC member to participate effectively. The point was also made to me that we tend to assume that when we put something out, either on our mailing list or our website, that is enough for the GAC to be aware of it. I was told that it is not so, and that there is no substitute for direct communication. So in that regard, it sounds like our discussions in today's wrap-up about being seen to be more constructive and more proactive are spot on. With that in mind, I would suggest that we perhaps want to send the draft letter on the IOC and RC names anyway. The idea being to show that we have done some thinking about this issue as well (someone made that point during the wrap-up, I forget who so apologies). Also, I was told that unless we write to the GAC to tell them about the announcement made by ICANN and the registrars and published on the GNSO mailing list, they don't know about it. As this is a registrar specific issue, it is perhaps not for the GNSO as a whole to mention. But it is perhaps worth thinking about. The main takeaway I got from the conversation is that we should look to improve the way we communicate with the outside world (this is not something I was told, it is my own conclusion). Hope this is helpful. Get home safe everyone. Enjoyed working with you this week. Stéphane
Good point Mary, I forgot the topic of a liaison. They say they can't do that, but actually suggest the reverse, i.e. that we send them a liaison! An interesting suggestion… Stéphane Le 27 oct. 2011 à 16:39, <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> a écrit :
Hmm ... isn't this one very good reason why we ought to have GNSO-GAC liaisons?
Also, while I understand the difficulty the GAC may have with nit having one or two people represent the GAC formally, should we consider inviting them to appoint an observer or liaison to the task force or WG that Jeff is leading?
Thanks for the prompt action and reporting back, Stéphane.
Cheers Mary
"Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com>" <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> wrote:
All,
As we discussed during today's wrap-up, I had an informal conversation with the GAC.
I passed along the message that there was disappointment at the GAC's apparent lack of desire for a common effort on the IOC and RC names. The answer was that the GAC remains extremely challenged when it comes to participating in joint efforts of this kind. There are workload issues first and foremost for government reps, but also because of the unique nature of the GAC it is difficult for any GAC member to participate effectively.
The point was also made to me that we tend to assume that when we put something out, either on our mailing list or our website, that is enough for the GAC to be aware of it. I was told that it is not so, and that there is no substitute for direct communication. So in that regard, it sounds like our discussions in today's wrap-up about being seen to be more constructive and more proactive are spot on.
With that in mind, I would suggest that we perhaps want to send the draft letter on the IOC and RC names anyway. The idea being to show that we have done some thinking about this issue as well (someone made that point during the wrap-up, I forget who so apologies).
Also, I was told that unless we write to the GAC to tell them about the announcement made by ICANN and the registrars and published on the GNSO mailing list, they don't know about it. As this is a registrar specific issue, it is perhaps not for the GNSO as a whole to mention. But it is perhaps worth thinking about.
The main takeaway I got from the conversation is that we should look to improve the way we communicate with the outside world (this is not something I was told, it is my own conclusion).
Hope this is helpful.
Get home safe everyone. Enjoyed working with you this week.
Stéphane
Stéphane, thanks for having dealt with this already! I think that the suggestion that we send someone is most interesting and we should make a decision whether or not to grab this opportunity to open up an additional communication chanel in a timely fashion given the current difficult situation. I would very much welcome if we accepted the offer. Thomas ============= thomas-rickert.tel +49.228.74.898.0 Am 27.10.2011 um 16:48 schrieb Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>:
Good point Mary, I forgot the topic of a liaison. They say they can't do that, but actually suggest the reverse, i.e. that we send them a liaison!
An interesting suggestion…
Stéphane
Le 27 oct. 2011 à 16:39, <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> a écrit :
Hmm ... isn't this one very good reason why we ought to have GNSO-GAC liaisons?
Also, while I understand the difficulty the GAC may have with nit having one or two people represent the GAC formally, should we consider inviting them to appoint an observer or liaison to the task force or WG that Jeff is leading?
Thanks for the prompt action and reporting back, Stéphane.
Cheers Mary
"Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com>" <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> wrote:
All,
As we discussed during today's wrap-up, I had an informal conversation with the GAC.
I passed along the message that there was disappointment at the GAC's apparent lack of desire for a common effort on the IOC and RC names. The answer was that the GAC remains extremely challenged when it comes to participating in joint efforts of this kind. There are workload issues first and foremost for government reps, but also because of the unique nature of the GAC it is difficult for any GAC member to participate effectively.
The point was also made to me that we tend to assume that when we put something out, either on our mailing list or our website, that is enough for the GAC to be aware of it. I was told that it is not so, and that there is no substitute for direct communication. So in that regard, it sounds like our discussions in today's wrap-up about being seen to be more constructive and more proactive are spot on.
With that in mind, I would suggest that we perhaps want to send the draft letter on the IOC and RC names anyway. The idea being to show that we have done some thinking about this issue as well (someone made that point during the wrap-up, I forget who so apologies).
Also, I was told that unless we write to the GAC to tell them about the announcement made by ICANN and the registrars and published on the GNSO mailing list, they don't know about it. As this is a registrar specific issue, it is perhaps not for the GNSO as a whole to mention. But it is perhaps worth thinking about.
The main takeaway I got from the conversation is that we should look to improve the way we communicate with the outside world (this is not something I was told, it is my own conclusion).
Hope this is helpful.
Get home safe everyone. Enjoyed working with you this week.
Stéphane
Hmm ... isn't this one very good reason why we ought to have GNSO-GAC
Hi - my apologies for missing this meeting - it was 12am onwards here. Thanks for your work on this Stephane and Mary's idea of some mechanism(s) to help build relationships is a good one - whether as observer or liaison point. Or perhaps a standing item on the GNSO agenda could be: GAC - with a GAC rep/Chair given the opportunity to attend on specific topics of GNSO/GAC working methods? A practical suggestion on the IOC Red Cross matter: GAC makes a fair point on the intra-GAC issues (and, as Thomas says, GNSO councillors also face workload challenges). Could we suggest a small GNSO GAC working group on this specific issue? The group could take forward some of the issues raised and, perhaps, work together to suggest options/pathways forward for the two groups to consider? Joy -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, 28 October 2011 5:49 a.m. To: Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Informal conversation Good point Mary, I forgot the topic of a liaison. They say they can't do that, but actually suggest the reverse, i.e. that we send them a liaison! An interesting suggestion Stéphane Le 27 oct. 2011 à 16:39, <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> a écrit : liaisons?
Also, while I understand the difficulty the GAC may have with nit having
one or two people represent the GAC formally, should we consider inviting them to appoint an observer or liaison to the task force or WG that Jeff is leading?
Thanks for the prompt action and reporting back, Stéphane.
Cheers Mary
"Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com>"
<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> wrote:
All,
As we discussed during today's wrap-up, I had an informal conversation
with the GAC.
I passed along the message that there was disappointment at the GAC's
apparent lack of desire for a common effort on the IOC and RC names. The answer was that the GAC remains extremely challenged when it comes to participating in joint efforts of this kind. There are workload issues first and foremost for government reps, but also because of the unique nature of the GAC it is difficult for any GAC member to participate effectively.
The point was also made to me that we tend to assume that when we put
something out, either on our mailing list or our website, that is enough for the GAC to be aware of it. I was told that it is not so, and that there is no substitute for direct communication. So in that regard, it sounds like our discussions in today's wrap-up about being seen to be more constructive and more proactive are spot on.
With that in mind, I would suggest that we perhaps want to send the draft
letter on the IOC and RC names anyway. The idea being to show that we have done some thinking about this issue as well (someone made that point during the wrap-up, I forget who so apologies).
Also, I was told that unless we write to the GAC to tell them about the
announcement made by ICANN and the registrars and published on the GNSO mailing list, they don't know about it. As this is a registrar specific issue, it is perhaps not for the GNSO as a whole to mention. But it is perhaps worth thinking about.
The main takeaway I got from the conversation is that we should look to
improve the way we communicate with the outside world (this is not something I was told, it is my own conclusion).
Hope this is helpful.
Get home safe everyone. Enjoyed working with you this week.
Stéphane
Hmm ... isn't this one very good reason why we ought to have GNSO-GAC
Thanks Joy. We have decided to form a small group of Councilors to work on these issues. I have volunteered to lead the up. We did ask the GAC several times if they wanted to work with us in some form of group, but they have declined our invitation. Therefore, after the letter is sent, we will try to work these issues on our own in a relatively quick time frame and after approval from the Council, we will share our thoughts with the GAC. They seem to prefer this course of action. We have also asked for volunteers and Glen has volunteered to set up a mailing list. If you would like to volunteer for this group, please let Glen know. Thanks again. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Joy Liddicoat Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 8:29 PM To: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Informal conversation Hi - my apologies for missing this meeting - it was 12am onwards here. Thanks for your work on this Stephane and Mary's idea of some mechanism(s) to help build relationships is a good one - whether as observer or liaison point. Or perhaps a standing item on the GNSO agenda could be: GAC - with a GAC rep/Chair given the opportunity to attend on specific topics of GNSO/GAC working methods? A practical suggestion on the IOC Red Cross matter: GAC makes a fair point on the intra-GAC issues (and, as Thomas says, GNSO councillors also face workload challenges). Could we suggest a small GNSO GAC working group on this specific issue? The group could take forward some of the issues raised and, perhaps, work together to suggest options/pathways forward for the two groups to consider? Joy -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, 28 October 2011 5:49 a.m. To: Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Informal conversation Good point Mary, I forgot the topic of a liaison. They say they can't do that, but actually suggest the reverse, i.e. that we send them a liaison! An interesting suggestion. Stéphane Le 27 oct. 2011 à 16:39, <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> a écrit : liaisons?
Also, while I understand the difficulty the GAC may have with nit having
one or two people represent the GAC formally, should we consider inviting them to appoint an observer or liaison to the task force or WG that Jeff is leading?
Thanks for the prompt action and reporting back, Stéphane.
Cheers Mary
"Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com>"
<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> wrote:
All,
As we discussed during today's wrap-up, I had an informal conversation
with the GAC.
I passed along the message that there was disappointment at the GAC's
apparent lack of desire for a common effort on the IOC and RC names. The answer was that the GAC remains extremely challenged when it comes to participating in joint efforts of this kind. There are workload issues first and foremost for government reps, but also because of the unique nature of the GAC it is difficult for any GAC member to participate effectively.
The point was also made to me that we tend to assume that when we put
something out, either on our mailing list or our website, that is enough for the GAC to be aware of it. I was told that it is not so, and that there is no substitute for direct communication. So in that regard, it sounds like our discussions in today's wrap-up about being seen to be more constructive and more proactive are spot on.
With that in mind, I would suggest that we perhaps want to send the draft
letter on the IOC and RC names anyway. The idea being to show that we have done some thinking about this issue as well (someone made that point during the wrap-up, I forget who so apologies).
Also, I was told that unless we write to the GAC to tell them about the
announcement made by ICANN and the registrars and published on the GNSO mailing list, they don't know about it. As this is a registrar specific issue, it is perhaps not for the GNSO as a whole to mention. But it is perhaps worth thinking about.
The main takeaway I got from the conversation is that we should look to
improve the way we communicate with the outside world (this is not something I was told, it is my own conclusion).
Hope this is helpful.
Get home safe everyone. Enjoyed working with you this week.
Stéphane
Jeff, all, I volunteer to participate in this group. Best, Thomas Am 28.10.2011 um 00:15 schrieb Neuman, Jeff:
Thanks Joy. We have decided to form a small group of Councilors to work on these issues. I have volunteered to lead the up. We did ask the GAC several times if they wanted to work with us in some form of group, but they have declined our invitation. Therefore, after the letter is sent, we will try to work these issues on our own in a relatively quick time frame and after approval from the Council, we will share our thoughts with the GAC. They seem to prefer this course of action.
We have also asked for volunteers and Glen has volunteered to set up a mailing list. If you would like to volunteer for this group, please let Glen know.
Thanks again.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Joy Liddicoat Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 8:29 PM To: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Informal conversation
Hi - my apologies for missing this meeting - it was 12am onwards here. Thanks for your work on this Stephane and Mary's idea of some mechanism(s) to help build relationships is a good one - whether as observer or liaison point. Or perhaps a standing item on the GNSO agenda could be: GAC - with a GAC rep/Chair given the opportunity to attend on specific topics of GNSO/GAC working methods? A practical suggestion on the IOC Red Cross matter: GAC makes a fair point on the intra-GAC issues (and, as Thomas says, GNSO councillors also face workload challenges). Could we suggest a small GNSO GAC working group on this specific issue? The group could take forward some of the issues raised and, perhaps, work together to suggest options/pathways forward for the two groups to consider?
Joy
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, 28 October 2011 5:49 a.m. To: Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Informal conversation
Good point Mary, I forgot the topic of a liaison. They say they can't do that, but actually suggest the reverse, i.e. that we send them a liaison!
An interesting suggestion.
Stéphane
Le 27 oct. 2011 à 16:39, <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> a écrit :
Hmm ... isn't this one very good reason why we ought to have GNSO-GAC liaisons?
Also, while I understand the difficulty the GAC may have with nit having one or two people represent the GAC formally, should we consider inviting them to appoint an observer or liaison to the task force or WG that Jeff is leading?
Thanks for the prompt action and reporting back, Stéphane.
Cheers Mary
"Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com>" <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> wrote:
All,
As we discussed during today's wrap-up, I had an informal conversation with the GAC.
I passed along the message that there was disappointment at the GAC's apparent lack of desire for a common effort on the IOC and RC names. The answer was that the GAC remains extremely challenged when it comes to participating in joint efforts of this kind. There are workload issues first and foremost for government reps, but also because of the unique nature of the GAC it is difficult for any GAC member to participate effectively.
The point was also made to me that we tend to assume that when we put something out, either on our mailing list or our website, that is enough for the GAC to be aware of it. I was told that it is not so, and that there is no substitute for direct communication. So in that regard, it sounds like our discussions in today's wrap-up about being seen to be more constructive and more proactive are spot on.
With that in mind, I would suggest that we perhaps want to send the draft letter on the IOC and RC names anyway. The idea being to show that we have done some thinking about this issue as well (someone made that point during the wrap-up, I forget who so apologies).
Also, I was told that unless we write to the GAC to tell them about the announcement made by ICANN and the registrars and published on the GNSO mailing list, they don't know about it. As this is a registrar specific issue, it is perhaps not for the GNSO as a whole to mention. But it is perhaps worth thinking about.
The main takeaway I got from the conversation is that we should look to improve the way we communicate with the outside world (this is not something I was told, it is my own conclusion).
Hope this is helpful.
Get home safe everyone. Enjoyed working with you this week.
Stéphane
___________________________________________________________ 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
Hello, I would like to join the group. Best, Rafik 2011/10/28 Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>
Jeff, all, I volunteer to participate in this group.
Best, Thomas
Am 28.10.2011 um 00:15 schrieb Neuman, Jeff:
Thanks Joy. We have decided to form a small group of Councilors to work on these issues. I have volunteered to lead the up. We did ask the GAC several times if they wanted to work with us in some form of group, but they have declined our invitation. Therefore, after the letter is sent, we will try to work these issues on our own in a relatively quick time frame and after approval from the Council, we will share our thoughts with the GAC. They seem to prefer this course of action.
We have also asked for volunteers and Glen has volunteered to set up a mailing list. If you would like to volunteer for this group, please let Glen know.
Thanks again.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Joy Liddicoat Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 8:29 PM To: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Informal conversation
Hi - my apologies for missing this meeting - it was 12am onwards here. Thanks for your work on this Stephane and Mary's idea of some mechanism(s) to help build relationships is a good one - whether as observer or liaison point. Or perhaps a standing item on the GNSO agenda could be: GAC - with a GAC rep/Chair given the opportunity to attend on specific topics of GNSO/GAC working methods? A practical suggestion on the IOC Red Cross matter: GAC makes a fair point on the intra-GAC issues (and, as Thomas says, GNSO councillors also face workload challenges). Could we suggest a small GNSO GAC working group on this specific issue? The group could take forward some of the issues raised and, perhaps, work together to suggest options/pathways forward for the two groups to consider?
Joy
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, 28 October 2011 5:49 a.m. To: Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Informal conversation
Good point Mary, I forgot the topic of a liaison. They say they can't do that, but actually suggest the reverse, i.e. that we send them a liaison!
An interesting suggestion.
Stéphane
Le 27 oct. 2011 à 16:39, <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> a écrit :
Hmm ... isn't this one very good reason why we ought to have GNSO-GAC
liaisons?
Also, while I understand the difficulty the GAC may have with nit having
one or two people represent the GAC formally, should we consider inviting them to appoint an observer or liaison to the task force or WG that Jeff is leading?
Thanks for the prompt action and reporting back, Stéphane.
Cheers
Mary
"Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com>"
<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> wrote:
All,
As we discussed during today's wrap-up, I had an informal conversation
with the GAC.
I passed along the message that there was disappointment at the GAC's
apparent lack of desire for a common effort on the IOC and RC names. The answer was that the GAC remains extremely challenged when it comes to participating in joint efforts of this kind. There are workload issues first and foremost for government reps, but also because of the unique nature of the GAC it is difficult for any GAC member to participate effectively.
The point was also made to me that we tend to assume that when we put
something out, either on our mailing list or our website, that is enough for the GAC to be aware of it. I was told that it is not so, and that there is no substitute for direct communication. So in that regard, it sounds like our discussions in today's wrap-up about being seen to be more constructive and more proactive are spot on.
With that in mind, I would suggest that we perhaps want to send the draft
letter on the IOC and RC names anyway. The idea being to show that we have done some thinking about this issue as well (someone made that point during the wrap-up, I forget who so apologies).
Also, I was told that unless we write to the GAC to tell them about the
announcement made by ICANN and the registrars and published on the GNSO mailing list, they don't know about it. As this is a registrar specific issue, it is perhaps not for the GNSO as a whole to mention. But it is perhaps worth thinking about.
The main takeaway I got from the conversation is that we should look to
improve the way we communicate with the outside world (this is not something I was told, it is my own conclusion).
Hope this is helpful.
Get home safe everyone. Enjoyed working with you this week.
Stéphane
___________________________________________________________ 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 – I am also happy to assist with this. Kind regards Joy From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, 29 October 2011 12:51 a.m. To: Thomas Rickert Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Joy Liddicoat; Stéphane Van Gelder; Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Informal conversation Hello, I would like to join the group. Best, Rafik 2011/10/28 Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> Jeff, all, I volunteer to participate in this group. Best, Thomas Am 28.10.2011 um 00:15 schrieb Neuman, Jeff: Thanks Joy. We have decided to form a small group of Councilors to work on these issues. I have volunteered to lead the up. We did ask the GAC several times if they wanted to work with us in some form of group, but they have declined our invitation. Therefore, after the letter is sent, we will try to work these issues on our own in a relatively quick time frame and after approval from the Council, we will share our thoughts with the GAC. They seem to prefer this course of action. We have also asked for volunteers and Glen has volunteered to set up a mailing list. If you would like to volunteer for this group, please let Glen know. Thanks again. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Joy Liddicoat Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 8:29 PM To: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Informal conversation Hi - my apologies for missing this meeting - it was 12am onwards here. Thanks for your work on this Stephane and Mary's idea of some mechanism(s) to help build relationships is a good one - whether as observer or liaison point. Or perhaps a standing item on the GNSO agenda could be: GAC - with a GAC rep/Chair given the opportunity to attend on specific topics of GNSO/GAC working methods? A practical suggestion on the IOC Red Cross matter: GAC makes a fair point on the intra-GAC issues (and, as Thomas says, GNSO councillors also face workload challenges). Could we suggest a small GNSO GAC working group on this specific issue? The group could take forward some of the issues raised and, perhaps, work together to suggest options/pathways forward for the two groups to consider? Joy -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, 28 October 2011 5:49 a.m. To: Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Informal conversation Good point Mary, I forgot the topic of a liaison. They say they can't do that, but actually suggest the reverse, i.e. that we send them a liaison! An interesting suggestion. Stéphane Le 27 oct. 2011 à 16:39, <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> a écrit : Hmm ... isn't this one very good reason why we ought to have GNSO-GAC liaisons? Also, while I understand the difficulty the GAC may have with nit having one or two people represent the GAC formally, should we consider inviting them to appoint an observer or liaison to the task force or WG that Jeff is leading? Thanks for the prompt action and reporting back, Stéphane. Cheers Mary "Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com>" <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> wrote: All, As we discussed during today's wrap-up, I had an informal conversation with the GAC. I passed along the message that there was disappointment at the GAC's apparent lack of desire for a common effort on the IOC and RC names. The answer was that the GAC remains extremely challenged when it comes to participating in joint efforts of this kind. There are workload issues first and foremost for government reps, but also because of the unique nature of the GAC it is difficult for any GAC member to participate effectively. The point was also made to me that we tend to assume that when we put something out, either on our mailing list or our website, that is enough for the GAC to be aware of it. I was told that it is not so, and that there is no substitute for direct communication. So in that regard, it sounds like our discussions in today's wrap-up about being seen to be more constructive and more proactive are spot on. With that in mind, I would suggest that we perhaps want to send the draft letter on the IOC and RC names anyway. The idea being to show that we have done some thinking about this issue as well (someone made that point during the wrap-up, I forget who so apologies). Also, I was told that unless we write to the GAC to tell them about the announcement made by ICANN and the registrars and published on the GNSO mailing list, they don't know about it. As this is a registrar specific issue, it is perhaps not for the GNSO as a whole to mention. But it is perhaps worth thinking about. The main takeaway I got from the conversation is that we should look to improve the way we communicate with the outside world (this is not something I was told, it is my own conclusion). Hope this is helpful. Get home safe everyone. Enjoyed working with you this week. Stéphane ___________________________________________________________ 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 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29228%2074%20898%20-%200> Büro / Office Frankfurt a.M.: Savignystraße 43, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany Phone: +49 (0)69 714 021 - 56 <tel:%2B49%20%280%2969%20714%20021%20-%2056> Zentralfax: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 66 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29228%2074%20898%20-%2066> mailto: rickert@anwaelte.de skype-id: trickert web: www.anwaelte.de <http://www.anwaelte.de/>
Hi, I would also like to join the group. Best regards, Lanre From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Joy Liddicoat Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2011 8:06 PM To: 'Rafik Dammak'; 'Thomas Rickert' Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff'; 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Informal conversation Hi – I am also happy to assist with this. Kind regards Joy From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, 29 October 2011 12:51 a.m. To: Thomas Rickert Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Joy Liddicoat; Stéphane Van Gelder; Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Informal conversation Hello, I would like to join the group. Best, Rafik 2011/10/28 Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> Jeff, all, I volunteer to participate in this group. Best, Thomas Am 28.10.2011 um 00:15 schrieb Neuman, Jeff: Thanks Joy. We have decided to form a small group of Councilors to work on these issues. I have volunteered to lead the up. We did ask the GAC several times if they wanted to work with us in some form of group, but they have declined our invitation. Therefore, after the letter is sent, we will try to work these issues on our own in a relatively quick time frame and after approval from the Council, we will share our thoughts with the GAC. They seem to prefer this course of action. We have also asked for volunteers and Glen has volunteered to set up a mailing list. If you would like to volunteer for this group, please let Glen know. Thanks again. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Joy Liddicoat Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 8:29 PM To: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Informal conversation Hi - my apologies for missing this meeting - it was 12am onwards here. Thanks for your work on this Stephane and Mary's idea of some mechanism(s) to help build relationships is a good one - whether as observer or liaison point. Or perhaps a standing item on the GNSO agenda could be: GAC - with a GAC rep/Chair given the opportunity to attend on specific topics of GNSO/GAC working methods? A practical suggestion on the IOC Red Cross matter: GAC makes a fair point on the intra-GAC issues (and, as Thomas says, GNSO councillors also face workload challenges). Could we suggest a small GNSO GAC working group on this specific issue? The group could take forward some of the issues raised and, perhaps, work together to suggest options/pathways forward for the two groups to consider? Joy -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, 28 October 2011 5:49 a.m. To: Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Informal conversation Good point Mary, I forgot the topic of a liaison. They say they can't do that, but actually suggest the reverse, i.e. that we send them a liaison! An interesting suggestion. Stéphane Le 27 oct. 2011 à 16:39, <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> a écrit : Hmm ... isn't this one very good reason why we ought to have GNSO-GAC liaisons? Also, while I understand the difficulty the GAC may have with nit having one or two people represent the GAC formally, should we consider inviting them to appoint an observer or liaison to the task force or WG that Jeff is leading? Thanks for the prompt action and reporting back, Stéphane. Cheers Mary "Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com>" <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> wrote: All, As we discussed during today's wrap-up, I had an informal conversation with the GAC. I passed along the message that there was disappointment at the GAC's apparent lack of desire for a common effort on the IOC and RC names. The answer was that the GAC remains extremely challenged when it comes to participating in joint efforts of this kind. There are workload issues first and foremost for government reps, but also because of the unique nature of the GAC it is difficult for any GAC member to participate effectively. The point was also made to me that we tend to assume that when we put something out, either on our mailing list or our website, that is enough for the GAC to be aware of it. I was told that it is not so, and that there is no substitute for direct communication. So in that regard, it sounds like our discussions in today's wrap-up about being seen to be more constructive and more proactive are spot on. With that in mind, I would suggest that we perhaps want to send the draft letter on the IOC and RC names anyway. The idea being to show that we have done some thinking about this issue as well (someone made that point during the wrap-up, I forget who so apologies). Also, I was told that unless we write to the GAC to tell them about the announcement made by ICANN and the registrars and published on the GNSO mailing list, they don't know about it. As this is a registrar specific issue, it is perhaps not for the GNSO as a whole to mention. But it is perhaps worth thinking about. The main takeaway I got from the conversation is that we should look to improve the way we communicate with the outside world (this is not something I was told, it is my own conclusion). Hope this is helpful. Get home safe everyone. Enjoyed working with you this week. Stéphane ___________________________________________________________ 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 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29228%2074%20898%20-%200> Büro / Office Frankfurt a.M.: Savignystraße 43, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany Phone: +49 (0)69 714 021 - 56 <tel:%2B49%20%280%2969%20714%20021%20-%2056> Zentralfax: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 66 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29228%2074%20898%20-%2066> mailto: rickert@anwaelte.de skype-id: trickert web: www.anwaelte.de <http://www.anwaelte.de/>
Thanks for your interest Joy, we will add you to the mailing list. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org De : owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] De la part de Joy Liddicoat Envoyé : samedi 29 octobre 2011 21:06 À : 'Rafik Dammak'; 'Thomas Rickert' Cc : 'Neuman, Jeff'; 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu; council@gnso.icann.org Objet : RE: [council] Informal conversation Hi – I am also happy to assist with this. Kind regards Joy From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, 29 October 2011 12:51 a.m. To: Thomas Rickert Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Joy Liddicoat; Stéphane Van Gelder; Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Informal conversation Hello, I would like to join the group. Best, Rafik 2011/10/28 Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>> Jeff, all, I volunteer to participate in this group. Best, Thomas Am 28.10.2011 um 00:15 schrieb Neuman, Jeff: Thanks Joy. We have decided to form a small group of Councilors to work on these issues. I have volunteered to lead the up. We did ask the GAC several times if they wanted to work with us in some form of group, but they have declined our invitation. Therefore, after the letter is sent, we will try to work these issues on our own in a relatively quick time frame and after approval from the Council, we will share our thoughts with the GAC. They seem to prefer this course of action. We have also asked for volunteers and Glen has volunteered to set up a mailing list. If you would like to volunteer for this group, please let Glen know. Thanks again. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: 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 Joy Liddicoat Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 8:29 PM To: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu<mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> Cc: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Informal conversation Hi - my apologies for missing this meeting - it was 12am onwards here. Thanks for your work on this Stephane and Mary's idea of some mechanism(s) to help build relationships is a good one - whether as observer or liaison point. Or perhaps a standing item on the GNSO agenda could be: GAC - with a GAC rep/Chair given the opportunity to attend on specific topics of GNSO/GAC working methods? A practical suggestion on the IOC Red Cross matter: GAC makes a fair point on the intra-GAC issues (and, as Thomas says, GNSO councillors also face workload challenges). Could we suggest a small GNSO GAC working group on this specific issue? The group could take forward some of the issues raised and, perhaps, work together to suggest options/pathways forward for the two groups to consider? Joy -----Original Message----- From: 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: Friday, 28 October 2011 5:49 a.m. To: Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu<mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> Cc: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Informal conversation Good point Mary, I forgot the topic of a liaison. They say they can't do that, but actually suggest the reverse, i.e. that we send them a liaison! An interesting suggestion. Stéphane Le 27 oct. 2011 à 16:39, <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu<mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu>> a écrit : Hmm ... isn't this one very good reason why we ought to have GNSO-GAC liaisons? Also, while I understand the difficulty the GAC may have with nit having one or two people represent the GAC formally, should we consider inviting them to appoint an observer or liaison to the task force or WG that Jeff is leading? Thanks for the prompt action and reporting back, Stéphane. Cheers Mary "Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>>" <stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>> wrote: All, As we discussed during today's wrap-up, I had an informal conversation with the GAC. I passed along the message that there was disappointment at the GAC's apparent lack of desire for a common effort on the IOC and RC names. The answer was that the GAC remains extremely challenged when it comes to participating in joint efforts of this kind. There are workload issues first and foremost for government reps, but also because of the unique nature of the GAC it is difficult for any GAC member to participate effectively. The point was also made to me that we tend to assume that when we put something out, either on our mailing list or our website, that is enough for the GAC to be aware of it. I was told that it is not so, and that there is no substitute for direct communication. So in that regard, it sounds like our discussions in today's wrap-up about being seen to be more constructive and more proactive are spot on. With that in mind, I would suggest that we perhaps want to send the draft letter on the IOC and RC names anyway. The idea being to show that we have done some thinking about this issue as well (someone made that point during the wrap-up, I forget who so apologies). Also, I was told that unless we write to the GAC to tell them about the announcement made by ICANN and the registrars and published on the GNSO mailing list, they don't know about it. As this is a registrar specific issue, it is perhaps not for the GNSO as a whole to mention. But it is perhaps worth thinking about. The main takeaway I got from the conversation is that we should look to improve the way we communicate with the outside world (this is not something I was told, it is my own conclusion). Hope this is helpful. Get home safe everyone. Enjoyed working with you this week. Stéphane ___________________________________________________________ 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29228%2074%20898%20-%200> Büro / Office Frankfurt a.M.: Savignystraße 43, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany Phone: +49 (0)69 714 021 - 56<tel:%2B49%20%280%2969%20714%20021%20-%2056> Zentralfax: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 66<tel:%2B49%20%280%29228%2074%20898%20-%2066> mailto: rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de> skype-id: trickert web: www.anwaelte.de<http://www.anwaelte.de/>
I would like to join as well. Brian J. Winterfeldt, Esq. Steptoe & Johnson LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 TEL 202.429.6260 | FAX 202.261.7547 bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> The information contained in this e-mail may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender at “bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com.” Thank you. On Oct 28, 2011, at 7:53 AM, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak@gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>> wrote: Hello, I would like to join the group. Best, Rafik 2011/10/28 Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>> Jeff, all, I volunteer to participate in this group. Best, Thomas Am 28.10.2011 um 00:15 schrieb Neuman, Jeff: Thanks Joy. We have decided to form a small group of Councilors to work on these issues. I have volunteered to lead the up. We did ask the GAC several times if they wanted to work with us in some form of group, but they have declined our invitation. Therefore, after the letter is sent, we will try to work these issues on our own in a relatively quick time frame and after approval from the Council, we will share our thoughts with the GAC. They seem to prefer this course of action. We have also asked for volunteers and Glen has volunteered to set up a mailing list. If you would like to volunteer for this group, please let Glen know. Thanks again. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: 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 Joy Liddicoat Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 8:29 PM To: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu<mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> Cc: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Informal conversation Hi - my apologies for missing this meeting - it was 12am onwards here. Thanks for your work on this Stephane and Mary's idea of some mechanism(s) to help build relationships is a good one - whether as observer or liaison point. Or perhaps a standing item on the GNSO agenda could be: GAC - with a GAC rep/Chair given the opportunity to attend on specific topics of GNSO/GAC working methods? A practical suggestion on the IOC Red Cross matter: GAC makes a fair point on the intra-GAC issues (and, as Thomas says, GNSO councillors also face workload challenges). Could we suggest a small GNSO GAC working group on this specific issue? The group could take forward some of the issues raised and, perhaps, work together to suggest options/pathways forward for the two groups to consider? Joy -----Original Message----- From: 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: Friday, 28 October 2011 5:49 a.m. To: Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu<mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> Cc: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Informal conversation Good point Mary, I forgot the topic of a liaison. They say they can't do that, but actually suggest the reverse, i.e. that we send them a liaison! An interesting suggestion. Stéphane Le 27 oct. 2011 à 16:39, <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu<mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu>> a écrit : Hmm ... isn't this one very good reason why we ought to have GNSO-GAC liaisons? Also, while I understand the difficulty the GAC may have with nit having one or two people represent the GAC formally, should we consider inviting them to appoint an observer or liaison to the task force or WG that Jeff is leading? Thanks for the prompt action and reporting back, Stéphane. Cheers Mary "Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>>" <stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>> wrote: All, As we discussed during today's wrap-up, I had an informal conversation with the GAC. I passed along the message that there was disappointment at the GAC's apparent lack of desire for a common effort on the IOC and RC names. The answer was that the GAC remains extremely challenged when it comes to participating in joint efforts of this kind. There are workload issues first and foremost for government reps, but also because of the unique nature of the GAC it is difficult for any GAC member to participate effectively. The point was also made to me that we tend to assume that when we put something out, either on our mailing list or our website, that is enough for the GAC to be aware of it. I was told that it is not so, and that there is no substitute for direct communication. So in that regard, it sounds like our discussions in today's wrap-up about being seen to be more constructive and more proactive are spot on. With that in mind, I would suggest that we perhaps want to send the draft letter on the IOC and RC names anyway. The idea being to show that we have done some thinking about this issue as well (someone made that point during the wrap-up, I forget who so apologies). Also, I was told that unless we write to the GAC to tell them about the announcement made by ICANN and the registrars and published on the GNSO mailing list, they don't know about it. As this is a registrar specific issue, it is perhaps not for the GNSO as a whole to mention. But it is perhaps worth thinking about. The main takeaway I got from the conversation is that we should look to improve the way we communicate with the outside world (this is not something I was told, it is my own conclusion). Hope this is helpful. Get home safe everyone. Enjoyed working with you this week. Stéphane ___________________________________________________________ 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29228%2074%20898%20-%200> Büro / Office Frankfurt a.M.: Savignystraße 43, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany Phone: +49 (0)69 714 021 - 56<tel:%2B49%20%280%2969%20714%20021%20-%2056> Zentralfax: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 66<tel:%2B49%20%280%29228%2074%20898%20-%2066> mailto: rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de> skype-id: trickert web: www.anwaelte.de<http://www.anwaelte.de/>
Thanks for your interest Brian, we will add your name to the mailing list. Thanks Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org De : owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] De la part de Winterfeldt, Brian Envoyé : dimanche 30 octobre 2011 19:52 À : Rafik Dammak Cc : Thomas Rickert; Neuman, Jeff; Joy Liddicoat; Stéphane Van Gelder; Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu; council@gnso.icann.org Objet : Re: [council] Informal conversation I would like to join as well. Brian J. Winterfeldt, Esq. Steptoe & Johnson LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 TEL 202.429.6260 | FAX 202.261.7547 bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> The information contained in this e-mail may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender at “bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com.” Thank you. On Oct 28, 2011, at 7:53 AM, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak@gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>> wrote: Hello, I would like to join the group. Best, Rafik 2011/10/28 Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>> Jeff, all, I volunteer to participate in this group. Best, Thomas Am 28.10.2011 um 00:15 schrieb Neuman, Jeff: Thanks Joy. We have decided to form a small group of Councilors to work on these issues. I have volunteered to lead the up. We did ask the GAC several times if they wanted to work with us in some form of group, but they have declined our invitation. Therefore, after the letter is sent, we will try to work these issues on our own in a relatively quick time frame and after approval from the Council, we will share our thoughts with the GAC. They seem to prefer this course of action. We have also asked for volunteers and Glen has volunteered to set up a mailing list. If you would like to volunteer for this group, please let Glen know. Thanks again. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: 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 Joy Liddicoat Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 8:29 PM To: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu<mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> Cc: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Informal conversation Hi - my apologies for missing this meeting - it was 12am onwards here. Thanks for your work on this Stephane and Mary's idea of some mechanism(s) to help build relationships is a good one - whether as observer or liaison point. Or perhaps a standing item on the GNSO agenda could be: GAC - with a GAC rep/Chair given the opportunity to attend on specific topics of GNSO/GAC working methods? A practical suggestion on the IOC Red Cross matter: GAC makes a fair point on the intra-GAC issues (and, as Thomas says, GNSO councillors also face workload challenges). Could we suggest a small GNSO GAC working group on this specific issue? The group could take forward some of the issues raised and, perhaps, work together to suggest options/pathways forward for the two groups to consider? Joy -----Original Message----- From: 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: Friday, 28 October 2011 5:49 a.m. To: Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu<mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> Cc: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Informal conversation Good point Mary, I forgot the topic of a liaison. They say they can't do that, but actually suggest the reverse, i.e. that we send them a liaison! An interesting suggestion. Stéphane Le 27 oct. 2011 à 16:39, <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu<mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu>> a écrit : Hmm ... isn't this one very good reason why we ought to have GNSO-GAC liaisons? Also, while I understand the difficulty the GAC may have with nit having one or two people represent the GAC formally, should we consider inviting them to appoint an observer or liaison to the task force or WG that Jeff is leading? Thanks for the prompt action and reporting back, Stéphane. Cheers Mary "Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>>" <stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>> wrote: All, As we discussed during today's wrap-up, I had an informal conversation with the GAC. I passed along the message that there was disappointment at the GAC's apparent lack of desire for a common effort on the IOC and RC names. The answer was that the GAC remains extremely challenged when it comes to participating in joint efforts of this kind. There are workload issues first and foremost for government reps, but also because of the unique nature of the GAC it is difficult for any GAC member to participate effectively. The point was also made to me that we tend to assume that when we put something out, either on our mailing list or our website, that is enough for the GAC to be aware of it. I was told that it is not so, and that there is no substitute for direct communication. So in that regard, it sounds like our discussions in today's wrap-up about being seen to be more constructive and more proactive are spot on. With that in mind, I would suggest that we perhaps want to send the draft letter on the IOC and RC names anyway. The idea being to show that we have done some thinking about this issue as well (someone made that point during the wrap-up, I forget who so apologies). Also, I was told that unless we write to the GAC to tell them about the announcement made by ICANN and the registrars and published on the GNSO mailing list, they don't know about it. As this is a registrar specific issue, it is perhaps not for the GNSO as a whole to mention. But it is perhaps worth thinking about. The main takeaway I got from the conversation is that we should look to improve the way we communicate with the outside world (this is not something I was told, it is my own conclusion). Hope this is helpful. Get home safe everyone. Enjoyed working with you this week. Stéphane ___________________________________________________________ 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29228%2074%20898%20-%200> Büro / Office Frankfurt a.M.: Savignystraße 43, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany Phone: +49 (0)69 714 021 - 56<tel:%2B49%20%280%2969%20714%20021%20-%2056> Zentralfax: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 66<tel:%2B49%20%280%29228%2074%20898%20-%2066> mailto: rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de> skype-id: trickert web: www.anwaelte.de<http://www.anwaelte.de/>
Thanks Rafik, noted, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org De : owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] De la part de Rafik Dammak Envoyé : vendredi 28 octobre 2011 13:51 À : Thomas Rickert Cc : Neuman, Jeff; Joy Liddicoat; Stéphane Van Gelder; Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu; council@gnso.icann.org Objet : Re: [council] Informal conversation Hello, I would like to join the group. Best, Rafik 2011/10/28 Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>> Jeff, all, I volunteer to participate in this group. Best, Thomas Am 28.10.2011 um 00:15 schrieb Neuman, Jeff: Thanks Joy. We have decided to form a small group of Councilors to work on these issues. I have volunteered to lead the up. We did ask the GAC several times if they wanted to work with us in some form of group, but they have declined our invitation. Therefore, after the letter is sent, we will try to work these issues on our own in a relatively quick time frame and after approval from the Council, we will share our thoughts with the GAC. They seem to prefer this course of action. We have also asked for volunteers and Glen has volunteered to set up a mailing list. If you would like to volunteer for this group, please let Glen know. Thanks again. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: 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 Joy Liddicoat Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 8:29 PM To: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu<mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> Cc: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Informal conversation Hi - my apologies for missing this meeting - it was 12am onwards here. Thanks for your work on this Stephane and Mary's idea of some mechanism(s) to help build relationships is a good one - whether as observer or liaison point. Or perhaps a standing item on the GNSO agenda could be: GAC - with a GAC rep/Chair given the opportunity to attend on specific topics of GNSO/GAC working methods? A practical suggestion on the IOC Red Cross matter: GAC makes a fair point on the intra-GAC issues (and, as Thomas says, GNSO councillors also face workload challenges). Could we suggest a small GNSO GAC working group on this specific issue? The group could take forward some of the issues raised and, perhaps, work together to suggest options/pathways forward for the two groups to consider? Joy -----Original Message----- From: 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: Friday, 28 October 2011 5:49 a.m. To: Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu<mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> Cc: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Informal conversation Good point Mary, I forgot the topic of a liaison. They say they can't do that, but actually suggest the reverse, i.e. that we send them a liaison! An interesting suggestion. Stéphane Le 27 oct. 2011 à 16:39, <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu<mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu>> a écrit : Hmm ... isn't this one very good reason why we ought to have GNSO-GAC liaisons? Also, while I understand the difficulty the GAC may have with nit having one or two people represent the GAC formally, should we consider inviting them to appoint an observer or liaison to the task force or WG that Jeff is leading? Thanks for the prompt action and reporting back, Stéphane. Cheers Mary "Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>>" <stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>> wrote: All, As we discussed during today's wrap-up, I had an informal conversation with the GAC. I passed along the message that there was disappointment at the GAC's apparent lack of desire for a common effort on the IOC and RC names. The answer was that the GAC remains extremely challenged when it comes to participating in joint efforts of this kind. There are workload issues first and foremost for government reps, but also because of the unique nature of the GAC it is difficult for any GAC member to participate effectively. The point was also made to me that we tend to assume that when we put something out, either on our mailing list or our website, that is enough for the GAC to be aware of it. I was told that it is not so, and that there is no substitute for direct communication. So in that regard, it sounds like our discussions in today's wrap-up about being seen to be more constructive and more proactive are spot on. With that in mind, I would suggest that we perhaps want to send the draft letter on the IOC and RC names anyway. The idea being to show that we have done some thinking about this issue as well (someone made that point during the wrap-up, I forget who so apologies). Also, I was told that unless we write to the GAC to tell them about the announcement made by ICANN and the registrars and published on the GNSO mailing list, they don't know about it. As this is a registrar specific issue, it is perhaps not for the GNSO as a whole to mention. But it is perhaps worth thinking about. The main takeaway I got from the conversation is that we should look to improve the way we communicate with the outside world (this is not something I was told, it is my own conclusion). Hope this is helpful. Get home safe everyone. Enjoyed working with you this week. Stéphane ___________________________________________________________ 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%29228%2074%20898%20-%200> Büro / Office Frankfurt a.M.: Savignystraße 43, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany Phone: +49 (0)69 714 021 - 56<tel:%2B49%20%280%2969%20714%20021%20-%2056> Zentralfax: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 66<tel:%2B49%20%280%29228%2074%20898%20-%2066> mailto: rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de> skype-id: trickert web: www.anwaelte.de<http://www.anwaelte.de/>
Thanks Thomas, noted, Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org De : owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] De la part de Thomas Rickert Envoyé : vendredi 28 octobre 2011 13:39 À : Neuman, Jeff Cc : Joy Liddicoat; 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu; council@gnso.icann.org Objet : Re: [council] Informal conversation Jeff, all, I volunteer to participate in this group. Best, Thomas Am 28.10.2011 um 00:15 schrieb Neuman, Jeff: Thanks Joy. We have decided to form a small group of Councilors to work on these issues. I have volunteered to lead the up. We did ask the GAC several times if they wanted to work with us in some form of group, but they have declined our invitation. Therefore, after the letter is sent, we will try to work these issues on our own in a relatively quick time frame and after approval from the Council, we will share our thoughts with the GAC. They seem to prefer this course of action. We have also asked for volunteers and Glen has volunteered to set up a mailing list. If you would like to volunteer for this group, please let Glen know. Thanks again. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Joy Liddicoat Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 8:29 PM To: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu<mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> Cc: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Informal conversation Hi - my apologies for missing this meeting - it was 12am onwards here. Thanks for your work on this Stephane and Mary's idea of some mechanism(s) to help build relationships is a good one - whether as observer or liaison point. Or perhaps a standing item on the GNSO agenda could be: GAC - with a GAC rep/Chair given the opportunity to attend on specific topics of GNSO/GAC working methods? A practical suggestion on the IOC Red Cross matter: GAC makes a fair point on the intra-GAC issues (and, as Thomas says, GNSO councillors also face workload challenges). Could we suggest a small GNSO GAC working group on this specific issue? The group could take forward some of the issues raised and, perhaps, work together to suggest options/pathways forward for the two groups to consider? 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, 28 October 2011 5:49 a.m. To: Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu<mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> Cc: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Informal conversation Good point Mary, I forgot the topic of a liaison. They say they can't do that, but actually suggest the reverse, i.e. that we send them a liaison! An interesting suggestion. Stéphane Le 27 oct. 2011 à 16:39, <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu<mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu>> a écrit : Hmm ... isn't this one very good reason why we ought to have GNSO-GAC liaisons? Also, while I understand the difficulty the GAC may have with nit having one or two people represent the GAC formally, should we consider inviting them to appoint an observer or liaison to the task force or WG that Jeff is leading? Thanks for the prompt action and reporting back, Stéphane. Cheers Mary "Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>>" <stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>> wrote: All, As we discussed during today's wrap-up, I had an informal conversation with the GAC. I passed along the message that there was disappointment at the GAC's apparent lack of desire for a common effort on the IOC and RC names. The answer was that the GAC remains extremely challenged when it comes to participating in joint efforts of this kind. There are workload issues first and foremost for government reps, but also because of the unique nature of the GAC it is difficult for any GAC member to participate effectively. The point was also made to me that we tend to assume that when we put something out, either on our mailing list or our website, that is enough for the GAC to be aware of it. I was told that it is not so, and that there is no substitute for direct communication. So in that regard, it sounds like our discussions in today's wrap-up about being seen to be more constructive and more proactive are spot on. With that in mind, I would suggest that we perhaps want to send the draft letter on the IOC and RC names anyway. The idea being to show that we have done some thinking about this issue as well (someone made that point during the wrap-up, I forget who so apologies). Also, I was told that unless we write to the GAC to tell them about the announcement made by ICANN and the registrars and published on the GNSO mailing list, they don't know about it. As this is a registrar specific issue, it is perhaps not for the GNSO as a whole to mention. But it is perhaps worth thinking about. The main takeaway I got from the conversation is that we should look to improve the way we communicate with the outside world (this is not something I was told, it is my own conclusion). Hope this is helpful. Get home safe everyone. Enjoyed working with you this week. Stéphane ___________________________________________________________ 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/>
Hmm ... isn't this one very good reason why we ought to have GNSO-GAC
I would like to cooperate, though I'm new in the GNSO I think it will be a good opportunity to learn more on the themes that are under consideration. Best regards, Ing. Osvaldo Novoa Sub Gerente General R.I.I.C. ANTEL Guatemala 1075 Nivel 22 Tel. +598 2928 6400 Fax: +598 2928 6401 email: onovoa@antel.com.uy web: www.antel.com.uy -----Mensaje original----- De: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] En nombre de Neuman, Jeff Enviado el: Jueves, 27 de Octubre de 2011 10:16 p.m. Para: Joy Liddicoat; 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu CC: council@gnso.icann.org Asunto: RE: [council] Informal conversation Thanks Joy. We have decided to form a small group of Councilors to work on these issues. I have volunteered to lead the up. We did ask the GAC several times if they wanted to work with us in some form of group, but they have declined our invitation. Therefore, after the letter is sent, we will try to work these issues on our own in a relatively quick time frame and after approval from the Council, we will share our thoughts with the GAC. They seem to prefer this course of action. We have also asked for volunteers and Glen has volunteered to set up a mailing list. If you would like to volunteer for this group, please let Glen know. Thanks again. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Joy Liddicoat Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 8:29 PM To: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Informal conversation Hi - my apologies for missing this meeting - it was 12am onwards here. Thanks for your work on this Stephane and Mary's idea of some mechanism(s) to help build relationships is a good one - whether as observer or liaison point. Or perhaps a standing item on the GNSO agenda could be: GAC - with a GAC rep/Chair given the opportunity to attend on specific topics of GNSO/GAC working methods? A practical suggestion on the IOC Red Cross matter: GAC makes a fair point on the intra-GAC issues (and, as Thomas says, GNSO councillors also face workload challenges). Could we suggest a small GNSO GAC working group on this specific issue? The group could take forward some of the issues raised and, perhaps, work together to suggest options/pathways forward for the two groups to consider? Joy -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, 28 October 2011 5:49 a.m. To: Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Informal conversation Good point Mary, I forgot the topic of a liaison. They say they can't do that, but actually suggest the reverse, i.e. that we send them a liaison! An interesting suggestion. Stéphane Le 27 oct. 2011 à 16:39, <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> a écrit : liaisons?
Also, while I understand the difficulty the GAC may have with nit having
one or two people represent the GAC formally, should we consider inviting them to appoint an observer or liaison to the task force or WG that Jeff is leading?
Thanks for the prompt action and reporting back, Stéphane.
Cheers Mary
"Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com>"
<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> wrote:
All,
As we discussed during today's wrap-up, I had an informal conversation
with the GAC.
I passed along the message that there was disappointment at the GAC's
apparent lack of desire for a common effort on the IOC and RC names. The answer was that the GAC remains extremely challenged when it comes to participating in joint efforts of this kind. There are workload issues first and foremost for government reps, but also because of the unique nature of the GAC it is difficult for any GAC member to participate effectively.
The point was also made to me that we tend to assume that when we put
something out, either on our mailing list or our website, that is enough for the GAC to be aware of it. I was told that it is not so, and that there is no substitute for direct communication. So in that regard, it sounds like our discussions in today's wrap-up about being seen to be more constructive and more proactive are spot on.
With that in mind, I would suggest that we perhaps want to send the draft
letter on the IOC and RC names anyway. The idea being to show that we have done some thinking about this issue as well (someone made that point during the wrap-up, I forget who so apologies).
Also, I was told that unless we write to the GAC to tell them about the
announcement made by ICANN and the registrars and published on the GNSO mailing list, they don't know about it. As this is a registrar specific issue, it is perhaps not for the GNSO as a whole to mention. But it is perhaps worth thinking about.
The main takeaway I got from the conversation is that we should look to
improve the way we communicate with the outside world (this is not something I was told, it is my own conclusion).
Hope this is helpful.
Get home safe everyone. Enjoyed working with you this week.
Stéphane
El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.
Hmm ... isn't this one very good reason why we ought to have GNSO-GAC
Thank you for your interest Osvaldo, we will add you to the mailing list. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org -----Message d'origine----- De : owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] De la part de Novoa, Osvaldo Envoyé : vendredi 28 octobre 2011 13:53 À : 'Neuman, Jeff'; Joy Liddicoat; 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Cc : council@gnso.icann.org Objet : RE: [council] Informal conversation I would like to cooperate, though I'm new in the GNSO I think it will be a good opportunity to learn more on the themes that are under consideration. Best regards, Ing. Osvaldo Novoa Sub Gerente General R.I.I.C. ANTEL Guatemala 1075 Nivel 22 Tel. +598 2928 6400 Fax: +598 2928 6401 email: onovoa@antel.com.uy web: www.antel.com.uy -----Mensaje original----- De: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] En nombre de Neuman, Jeff Enviado el: Jueves, 27 de Octubre de 2011 10:16 p.m. Para: Joy Liddicoat; 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu CC: council@gnso.icann.org Asunto: RE: [council] Informal conversation Thanks Joy. We have decided to form a small group of Councilors to work on these issues. I have volunteered to lead the up. We did ask the GAC several times if they wanted to work with us in some form of group, but they have declined our invitation. Therefore, after the letter is sent, we will try to work these issues on our own in a relatively quick time frame and after approval from the Council, we will share our thoughts with the GAC. They seem to prefer this course of action. We have also asked for volunteers and Glen has volunteered to set up a mailing list. If you would like to volunteer for this group, please let Glen know. Thanks again. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Joy Liddicoat Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 8:29 PM To: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Informal conversation Hi - my apologies for missing this meeting - it was 12am onwards here. Thanks for your work on this Stephane and Mary's idea of some mechanism(s) to help build relationships is a good one - whether as observer or liaison point. Or perhaps a standing item on the GNSO agenda could be: GAC - with a GAC rep/Chair given the opportunity to attend on specific topics of GNSO/GAC working methods? A practical suggestion on the IOC Red Cross matter: GAC makes a fair point on the intra-GAC issues (and, as Thomas says, GNSO councillors also face workload challenges). Could we suggest a small GNSO GAC working group on this specific issue? The group could take forward some of the issues raised and, perhaps, work together to suggest options/pathways forward for the two groups to consider? Joy -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, 28 October 2011 5:49 a.m. To: Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Informal conversation Good point Mary, I forgot the topic of a liaison. They say they can't do that, but actually suggest the reverse, i.e. that we send them a liaison! An interesting suggestion. Stéphane Le 27 oct. 2011 à 16:39, <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> a écrit : liaisons?
Also, while I understand the difficulty the GAC may have with nit having
one or two people represent the GAC formally, should we consider inviting them to appoint an observer or liaison to the task force or WG that Jeff is leading?
Thanks for the prompt action and reporting back, Stéphane.
Cheers Mary
"Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com>"
<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> wrote:
All,
As we discussed during today's wrap-up, I had an informal conversation
with the GAC.
I passed along the message that there was disappointment at the GAC's
apparent lack of desire for a common effort on the IOC and RC names. The answer was that the GAC remains extremely challenged when it comes to participating in joint efforts of this kind. There are workload issues first and foremost for government reps, but also because of the unique nature of the GAC it is difficult for any GAC member to participate effectively.
The point was also made to me that we tend to assume that when we put
something out, either on our mailing list or our website, that is enough for the GAC to be aware of it. I was told that it is not so, and that there is no substitute for direct communication. So in that regard, it sounds like our discussions in today's wrap-up about being seen to be more constructive and more proactive are spot on.
With that in mind, I would suggest that we perhaps want to send the draft
letter on the IOC and RC names anyway. The idea being to show that we have done some thinking about this issue as well (someone made that point during the wrap-up, I forget who so apologies).
Also, I was told that unless we write to the GAC to tell them about the
announcement made by ICANN and the registrars and published on the GNSO mailing list, they don't know about it. As this is a registrar specific issue, it is perhaps not for the GNSO as a whole to mention. But it is perhaps worth thinking about.
The main takeaway I got from the conversation is that we should look to
improve the way we communicate with the outside world (this is not something I was told, it is my own conclusion).
Hope this is helpful.
Get home safe everyone. Enjoyed working with you this week.
Stéphane
El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.
Hello On Oct 27, 2011, at 6:48 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Good point Mary, I forgot the topic of a liaison. They say they can't do that, but actually suggest the reverse, i.e. that we send them a liaison!
An interesting suggestion…
Le 27 oct. 2011 à 16:39, <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> a écrit :
Hmm ... isn't this one very good reason why we ought to have GNSO-GAC liaisons?
Also, while I understand the difficulty the GAC may have with nit having one or two people represent the GAC formally, should we consider inviting them to appoint an observer or liaison to the task force or WG that Jeff is leading?
Thanks for the prompt action and reporting back, Stéphane.
Sorry to have been off the grid during the meeting; luckily I had an active Temporary Alternate. In a couple weeks I will be over some day job, health and travel humps and will have some bandwidth to allocate to Council matters. I would certainly be interested in doing something in connection with GAC, inter alia since I'm dealing with the same government folk on related matters in other settings anyway. Given the diversity of interests etc, I don't know if Council could comfortably settle on a single liaison. But if some formulation is found—one from each house, from each SG, or a rotating representation—I would certainly be interested in doing this for NCSG or anyone else who'd be comfortable with it. On a related governmental note, while several NCSG attempts to stimulate dialogue with the board on a devising a strategic community orientation toward developing country governments have gone nowhere, the issue remains rather live and relevant. By now I imagine everyone knows that after extensive coordination with Brazil and South Africa, India has formally proposed to the UN General Assembly that it should establish a United Nations Committee for Internet-Related Policies (CIRP). (This would be in addition to the ITU's Dedicated Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues, which has just been elevated to full working group status.) Comprising 50 Member States chosen on the basis of equitable geographical representation, the CIRP would meet annually for two working weeks in Geneva and be staffed by UNCTAD. The mandate would be, inter alia, to • Develop and establish international public policies with a view to ensuring coordination and coherence in cross-cutting Internet-related global issues; • Coordinate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards setting; • Facilitate negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on Internet-related public policies; • Address developmental issues related to the Internet; • Promote the promotion and protection of all human rights, namely, civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights, including the Right to Development; • Undertake arbitration and dispute resolution, where necessary; and, • Crisis management in relation to the Internet. ICANN figures in this in more than the obvious ways. While CIRP would be supported by the regular budget of the United Nations, a separate Fund should also be set up "drawing from the domain registration fees collected by various bodies involved in the technical functioning of the Internet, especially in terms of names and addresses." I guess the JAS group forgot to include that bit... It will be interesting to see whether and how these initiatives, which could attract support from numerous members of the G-77 and China, might connect with GAC discussions. Anyway, Bill
participants (11)
-
Glen de Saint Géry -
Joy Liddicoat -
Lanre Ajayi -
Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu -
Neuman, Jeff -
Novoa, Osvaldo -
Rafik Dammak -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
Thomas Rickert -
William Drake -
Winterfeldt, Brian