All, As mentioned during our meeting today, I would like to write down a few baseline points to take to the Icann academy WG as being Council positions or items on which the Council is comfortable it wants answers for. To get this started, here are my suggestion. Please comment, add or edit as required. Message 1 to the WG: There should be no discussions on a possible curriculum until there has first been discussion (and consensus among the different community reps in the WG) on whether the academy itself should be created. GNSO sub-message to message 1: The GNSO Council agrees the concept of an academy to help newcomers get to grips with the ICANN world is a good idea. But there needs to be clear guidelines on finance, budget and implementation. Message 2 to the WG: Once it has been determined that the concept of an academy is one that should be pushed forward, is willing to provide background material and support in helping academy attendees understand the intricacies of the GNSO and welcomes any suggestions from the WG on what type of material is needed. Please let me have other suggestions. Thanks. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT
Stephane, I think the first message could come across as arrogant to folks who did not follow today's discussion, particularly given recent sensitivities regarding CWGs. May I suggest something along the lines of the sub-message to proposed message 1 being the main message, and the main message becoming the sub, phrased as "The GNSO Council looks forward to participating in the community discussion concerning the establishment of the ICANN Academy"? Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname@law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu
From: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 5/10/2012 3:59 PM Subject: [council] ICANN Academy message All, As mentioned during our meeting today, I would like to write down a few baseline points to take to the Icann academy WG as being Council positions or items on which the Council is comfortable it wants answers for. To get this started, here are my suggestion. Please comment, add or edit as required. Message 1 to the WG: There should be no discussions on a possible curriculum until there has first been discussion (and consensus among the different community reps in the WG) on whether the academy itself should be created. GNSO sub-message to message 1: The GNSO Council agrees the concept of an academy to help newcomers get to grips with the ICANN world is a good idea. But there needs to be clear guidelines on finance, budget and implementation. Message 2 to the WG: Once it has been determined that the concept of an academy is one that should be pushed forward, is willing to provide background material and support in helping academy attendees understand the intricacies of the GNSO and welcomes any suggestions from the WG on what type of material is needed. Please let me have other suggestions. Thanks. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT
Hi Stephane, I agree with Mary, particularly in light of prior disconnects on CWGs, the tone is a bit negative as a first reaction. It almost sounds like we think it's up to the GNSO Council to decide whether this goes forward so they must satisfy us. Of course there will have to be a discussion in the WG in which the budgetary and other implications are addressed and those participants that haven't had a chance yet to ponder the proposal can raise any questions they have about the rationale. And if ultimately some SGs decide they're unpersuaded, that will have to be taken on board by the Board. So why not just say we look forward to participating and learning more about it? In the event you think "establishment of" is too loaded in the other direction, perhaps "The GNSO Council looks forward to participating in the community discussion concerning the proposed ICANN Academy" would suffice? Best, Bill On May 11, 2012, at 5:31 AM, <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> wrote:
Stephane, I think the first message could come across as arrogant to folks who did not follow today's discussion, particularly given recent sensitivities regarding CWGs. May I suggest something along the lines of the sub-message to proposed message 1 being the main message, and the main message becoming the sub, phrased as "The GNSO Council looks forward to participating in the community discussion concerning the establishment of the ICANN Academy"?
Cheers Mary
Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname@law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu
From: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 5/10/2012 3:59 PM Subject: [council] ICANN Academy message
All,
As mentioned during our meeting today, I would like to write down a few baseline points to take to the Icann academy WG as being Council positions or items on which the Council is comfortable it wants answers for.
To get this started, here are my suggestion. Please comment, add or edit as required.
Message 1 to the WG: There should be no discussions on a possible curriculum until there has first been discussion (and consensus among the different community reps in the WG) on whether the academy itself should be created. GNSO sub-message to message 1: The GNSO Council agrees the concept of an academy to help newcomers get to grips with the ICANN world is a good idea. But there needs to be clear guidelines on finance, budget and implementation.
Message 2 to the WG: Once it has been determined that the concept of an academy is one that should be pushed forward, is willing to provide background material and support in helping academy attendees understand the intricacies of the GNSO and welcomes any suggestions from the WG on what type of material is needed.
Please let me have other suggestions. Thanks.
Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT
Mary, Bill, Because if we say it like that, to me it sounds implicitly like we have already signed off on the academy. I did not get that as being a Council-wide position from our discussions on this yesterday. What I heard was that some are strongly in favor, and some are strongly cautious (no-one seemed strongly against). So my message was an attempt at balancing those two positions, without coming across as being negative. Perhaps I should at this stage disclose that in my own personal opinion, the academy is a good idea. I realize that in my drive to earnestly represent the Council's view and bury my own, which is the approach I've always had to being Chair of this group, I did not even provide my own views. I am doing so now just for the sake of full disclosure but of course, I will not carry my own views into the WG discussions, only the Council's. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Le 11 mai 2012 à 08:18, William Drake a écrit :
Hi Stephane,
I agree with Mary, particularly in light of prior disconnects on CWGs, the tone is a bit negative as a first reaction. It almost sounds like we think it's up to the GNSO Council to decide whether this goes forward so they must satisfy us. Of course there will have to be a discussion in the WG in which the budgetary and other implications are addressed and those participants that haven't had a chance yet to ponder the proposal can raise any questions they have about the rationale. And if ultimately some SGs decide they're unpersuaded, that will have to be taken on board by the Board. So why not just say we look forward to participating and learning more about it? In the event you think "establishment of" is too loaded in the other direction, perhaps "The GNSO Council looks forward to participating in the community discussion concerning the proposed ICANN Academy" would suffice?
Best,
Bill
On May 11, 2012, at 5:31 AM, <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> wrote:
Stephane, I think the first message could come across as arrogant to folks who did not follow today's discussion, particularly given recent sensitivities regarding CWGs. May I suggest something along the lines of the sub-message to proposed message 1 being the main message, and the main message becoming the sub, phrased as "The GNSO Council looks forward to participating in the community discussion concerning the establishment of the ICANN Academy"?
Cheers Mary
Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname@law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu
From: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 5/10/2012 3:59 PM Subject: [council] ICANN Academy message
All,
As mentioned during our meeting today, I would like to write down a few baseline points to take to the Icann academy WG as being Council positions or items on which the Council is comfortable it wants answers for.
To get this started, here are my suggestion. Please comment, add or edit as required.
Message 1 to the WG: There should be no discussions on a possible curriculum until there has first been discussion (and consensus among the different community reps in the WG) on whether the academy itself should be created. GNSO sub-message to message 1: The GNSO Council agrees the concept of an academy to help newcomers get to grips with the ICANN world is a good idea. But there needs to be clear guidelines on finance, budget and implementation.
Message 2 to the WG: Once it has been determined that the concept of an academy is one that should be pushed forward, is willing to provide background material and support in helping academy attendees understand the intricacies of the GNSO and welcomes any suggestions from the WG on what type of material is needed.
Please let me have other suggestions. Thanks.
Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT
Hi S Maybe it's my poor command of English, but "looks forward to participating in the community discussion concerning the proposed..." seems a lot more neutral to me than "There should be no discussions on a possible curriculum until there has first been discussion (and consensus among the different community reps in the WG) on whether…" How about "will participate in the community discussion concerning the proposed…" Just the facts, flat affect... Cheers Bill On May 11, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Mary, Bill,
Because if we say it like that, to me it sounds implicitly like we have already signed off on the academy.
I did not get that as being a Council-wide position from our discussions on this yesterday.
What I heard was that some are strongly in favor, and some are strongly cautious (no-one seemed strongly against).
So my message was an attempt at balancing those two positions, without coming across as being negative.
Perhaps I should at this stage disclose that in my own personal opinion, the academy is a good idea. I realize that in my drive to earnestly represent the Council's view and bury my own, which is the approach I've always had to being Chair of this group, I did not even provide my own views. I am doing so now just for the sake of full disclosure but of course, I will not carry my own views into the WG discussions, only the Council's.
Thanks,
Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT
Le 11 mai 2012 à 08:18, William Drake a écrit :
Hi Stephane,
I agree with Mary, particularly in light of prior disconnects on CWGs, the tone is a bit negative as a first reaction. It almost sounds like we think it's up to the GNSO Council to decide whether this goes forward so they must satisfy us. Of course there will have to be a discussion in the WG in which the budgetary and other implications are addressed and those participants that haven't had a chance yet to ponder the proposal can raise any questions they have about the rationale. And if ultimately some SGs decide they're unpersuaded, that will have to be taken on board by the Board. So why not just say we look forward to participating and learning more about it? In the event you think "establishment of" is too loaded in the other direction, perhaps "The GNSO Council looks forward to participating in the community discussion concerning the proposed ICANN Academy" would suffice?
Best,
Bill
On May 11, 2012, at 5:31 AM, <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> wrote:
Stephane, I think the first message could come across as arrogant to folks who did not follow today's discussion, particularly given recent sensitivities regarding CWGs. May I suggest something along the lines of the sub-message to proposed message 1 being the main message, and the main message becoming the sub, phrased as "The GNSO Council looks forward to participating in the community discussion concerning the establishment of the ICANN Academy"?
Cheers Mary
Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname@law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu
From: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 5/10/2012 3:59 PM Subject: [council] ICANN Academy message
All,
As mentioned during our meeting today, I would like to write down a few baseline points to take to the Icann academy WG as being Council positions or items on which the Council is comfortable it wants answers for.
To get this started, here are my suggestion. Please comment, add or edit as required.
Message 1 to the WG: There should be no discussions on a possible curriculum until there has first been discussion (and consensus among the different community reps in the WG) on whether the academy itself should be created. GNSO sub-message to message 1: The GNSO Council agrees the concept of an academy to help newcomers get to grips with the ICANN world is a good idea. But there needs to be clear guidelines on finance, budget and implementation.
Message 2 to the WG: Once it has been determined that the concept of an academy is one that should be pushed forward, is willing to provide background material and support in helping academy attendees understand the intricacies of the GNSO and welcomes any suggestions from the WG on what type of material is needed.
Please let me have other suggestions. Thanks.
Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT
Stéphane, all, since nobody seems to object against the idea, can't we say that the Council welcomes the plan to create further opportunities to educate interested parties about the ICANN eco system and that this could be a valuable tool to reach out to the community for their active participation. Also the message should contain a caveat that such approach would need to be carefully prepared in terms of curriculum, costs etc. I personally also thing that it is a great idea, particularly if the curriculum ensures to cover not only how ICANN works, but what ICANN's role in the world of Internet Governance is and some historical information to put things into context. I have seen such wholistic approach during Wolfgang's Summer School which was already mentioned during yesterday's call. I was part of the faculty last year and spoke to many students, which clearly showed how useful and well received such educational efforts are - if done properly :-). Thomas Am 11.05.2012 um 10:15 schrieb Stéphane Van Gelder:
Mary, Bill,
Because if we say it like that, to me it sounds implicitly like we have already signed off on the academy.
I did not get that as being a Council-wide position from our discussions on this yesterday.
What I heard was that some are strongly in favor, and some are strongly cautious (no-one seemed strongly against).
So my message was an attempt at balancing those two positions, without coming across as being negative.
Perhaps I should at this stage disclose that in my own personal opinion, the academy is a good idea. I realize that in my drive to earnestly represent the Council's view and bury my own, which is the approach I've always had to being Chair of this group, I did not even provide my own views. I am doing so now just for the sake of full disclosure but of course, I will not carry my own views into the WG discussions, only the Council's.
Thanks,
Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT
Le 11 mai 2012 à 08:18, William Drake a écrit :
Hi Stephane,
I agree with Mary, particularly in light of prior disconnects on CWGs, the tone is a bit negative as a first reaction. It almost sounds like we think it's up to the GNSO Council to decide whether this goes forward so they must satisfy us. Of course there will have to be a discussion in the WG in which the budgetary and other implications are addressed and those participants that haven't had a chance yet to ponder the proposal can raise any questions they have about the rationale. And if ultimately some SGs decide they're unpersuaded, that will have to be taken on board by the Board. So why not just say we look forward to participating and learning more about it? In the event you think "establishment of" is too loaded in the other direction, perhaps "The GNSO Council looks forward to participating in the community discussion concerning the proposed ICANN Academy" would suffice?
Best,
Bill
On May 11, 2012, at 5:31 AM, <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> wrote:
Stephane, I think the first message could come across as arrogant to folks who did not follow today's discussion, particularly given recent sensitivities regarding CWGs. May I suggest something along the lines of the sub-message to proposed message 1 being the main message, and the main message becoming the sub, phrased as "The GNSO Council looks forward to participating in the community discussion concerning the establishment of the ICANN Academy"?
Cheers Mary
Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname@law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu
From: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 5/10/2012 3:59 PM Subject: [council] ICANN Academy message
All,
As mentioned during our meeting today, I would like to write down a few baseline points to take to the Icann academy WG as being Council positions or items on which the Council is comfortable it wants answers for.
To get this started, here are my suggestion. Please comment, add or edit as required.
Message 1 to the WG: There should be no discussions on a possible curriculum until there has first been discussion (and consensus among the different community reps in the WG) on whether the academy itself should be created. GNSO sub-message to message 1: The GNSO Council agrees the concept of an academy to help newcomers get to grips with the ICANN world is a good idea. But there needs to be clear guidelines on finance, budget and implementation.
Message 2 to the WG: Once it has been determined that the concept of an academy is one that should be pushed forward, is willing to provide background material and support in helping academy attendees understand the intricacies of the GNSO and welcomes any suggestions from the WG on what type of material is needed.
Please let me have other suggestions. Thanks.
Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT
___________________________________________________________ Thomas Rickert, Rechtsanwalt Schollmeyer & Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm) Geschäftsführer / CEO: Torsten Schollmeyer, Thomas Rickert HRB 9262, AG Bonn Büro / Office Bonn: Kaiserplatz 7-9, 53113 Bonn, Germany Phone: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 0 Büro / Office Frankfurt a.M.: Savignystraße 43, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany Phone: +49 (0)69 714 021 - 56 Zentralfax: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 66 mailto: rickert@anwaelte.de skype-id: trickert web: www.anwaelte.de
participants (4)
-
Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
Thomas Rickert -
William Drake