Re: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels
Good to know that the majority of the Board remains in favour of the dinners. Thanks Rita. Stéphane Le 21 mai 2010 à 16:34, Rodin Johnston, Rita a écrit :
Stephane and all -
I very much agree with this sentiment and believe the majority of the board does as well. I'm not sure where this notion began, but bruce and I are in dublin and can discuss with peter. I would not be in favor of discontinuing dinner unless a better option for informal discussions was substituted. Thanks
----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> Cc: GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Fri May 21 10:09:27 2010 Subject: Re: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels
We are talking about the interaction between 2 of ICANN's major decision-making bodies.
I think it's important to keep sight of the usefulness of getting the people from each body talking to each other.
Even when there's no formal agenda, this type of interaction helps make organisations work.
Yes we can keep it formal, but when it's a social event it's often easier for people to meet and get to know each other. That then translates into real benefits for the organisation when it comes to formal work sessions.
As a new councillor, I found the first Board dinner I attended helped take away a lot of the awe and stress I felt at both learning the Council and working with the Board. From informal conversations with Board members, I found them to be much more approachable and in tune with the everyday problems ICANN faces than I had thought. I would never have gotten that in a more formal setting.
I think our joint dinner are an investment we all make to help oil the internal workings of the organisation.
Stéphane
Le 21 mai 2010 à 15:11, Bruce Tonkin a écrit :
Hello All,
I think the approach you suggest for the Board dinner is excellent. To me, these dinners are crucial for us and the opportunity for interaction with Board members they bring. I would hate to see them disappear, but would like to understand why some on the Board feel they should go.
Well here are some issues that get raised:
- the dinners are at the end of a long day of workshops/meetings - so some members are too tired to give important matters appropriate attention
- it is not always clear what the objective is - a general discussion about topics, a social event, discussion about a specific issues that the Board will be making a decision on that week?
- if the process is working properly - the Board will simply be endorsing the recommendations from the Council that have consensus support and should not be getting into the detail of particular policy matters. If there is disagreement amongst the parties in the GNSO - the GNSO should work it out together - not try to get the Board to take sides.
There are some that would prefer a more formal meeting - not aligned with a breakfast/lunch or dinner - where there are materials provided in advance and the Board members can ask questions about the particular issue.
Personally I think a mixture of formal and informal can work. e.g A period of time for a structured discussion with documents provided in advance, and the ability for the Board to ask questions on the documents. An informal eating occasion can then follow that is perhaps optional for the participants to attend to get a better understanding of the issues. This structure used to work quite well when we were doing the new gTLD policy development - the days were spent on policy discussions, and the dinners were an opportunity to break down some barriers in the discussions with no formal agenda, that often led to better results the following day.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ****************************************************
To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this message was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. **************************************************** ****************************************************
This email (and any attachments thereto) is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email (and any attachments thereto) is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error please immediately notify me at (212) 735-3000 and permanently delete the original email (and any copy of any email) and any printout thereof.
Further information about the firm, a list of the Partners and their professional qualifications will be provided upon request. **************************************************** ==============================================================================
Stephane Likewise! And I'm probably not favor a formal agenda for discussions either. What might be interesting and could likely be interesting for most folks would be discussions about ICANN and Internet governance directions. I suspect the next few years will be both challenging and pivotal for the Internet as we know it; you could even in toss the recent ITU initiatives. Take care Terry -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 12:22 PM To: Rodin Johnston, Rita Cc: 'Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au'; 'council@gnso.icann.org' Subject: Re: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels Good to know that the majority of the Board remains in favour of the dinners. Thanks Rita. Stéphane Le 21 mai 2010 à 16:34, Rodin Johnston, Rita a écrit :
Stephane and all -
I very much agree with this sentiment and believe the majority of the board does as well. I'm not sure where this notion began, but bruce and I are in dublin and can discuss with peter. I would not be in favor of discontinuing dinner unless a better option for informal discussions was substituted. Thanks
----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> Cc: GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Fri May 21 10:09:27 2010 Subject: Re: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels
We are talking about the interaction between 2 of ICANN's major decision-making bodies.
I think it's important to keep sight of the usefulness of getting the people from each body talking to each other.
Even when there's no formal agenda, this type of interaction helps make organisations work.
Yes we can keep it formal, but when it's a social event it's often easier for people to meet and get to know each other. That then translates into real benefits for the organisation when it comes to formal work sessions.
As a new councillor, I found the first Board dinner I attended helped take away a lot of the awe and stress I felt at both learning the Council and working with the Board. From informal conversations with Board members, I found them to be much more approachable and in tune with the everyday problems ICANN faces than I had thought. I would never have gotten that in a more formal setting.
I think our joint dinner are an investment we all make to help oil the internal workings of the organisation.
Stéphane
Le 21 mai 2010 à 15:11, Bruce Tonkin a écrit :
Hello All,
I think the approach you suggest for the Board dinner is excellent. To me, these dinners are crucial for us and the opportunity for interaction with Board members they bring. I would hate to see them disappear, but would like to understand why some on the Board feel they should go.
Well here are some issues that get raised:
- the dinners are at the end of a long day of workshops/meetings - so some members are too tired to give important matters appropriate attention
- it is not always clear what the objective is - a general discussion about topics, a social event, discussion about a specific issues that the Board will be making a decision on that week?
- if the process is working properly - the Board will simply be endorsing the recommendations from the Council that have consensus support and should not be getting into the detail of particular policy matters. If there is disagreement amongst the parties in the GNSO - the GNSO should work it out together - not try to get the Board to take sides.
There are some that would prefer a more formal meeting - not aligned with a breakfast/lunch or dinner - where there are materials provided in advance and the Board members can ask questions about the particular issue.
Personally I think a mixture of formal and informal can work. e.g A period of time for a structured discussion with documents provided in advance, and the ability for the Board to ask questions on the documents. An informal eating occasion can then follow that is perhaps optional for the participants to attend to get a better understanding of the issues. This structure used to work quite well when we were doing the new gTLD policy development - the days were spent on policy discussions, and the dinners were an opportunity to break down some barriers in the discussions with no formal agenda, that often led to better results the following day.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
****************************************************
To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this message was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. **************************************************** ****************************************************
This email (and any attachments thereto) is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email (and any attachments thereto) is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error please immediately notify me at (212) 735-3000 and permanently delete the original email (and any copy of any email) and any printout thereof.
Further information about the firm, a list of the Partners and their professional qualifications will be provided upon request. ****************************************************
============================================================================ ==
Hi Terry, I think it'd be more than interesting to talk with boardies about what's going on in the larger international political environment. That includes the ITU stuff, e.g. the October Plenipotentiary Conference in Guadalajara, for which there are various proposals circulating that could directly impact ICANN and its nexus. But it goes beyond this, as demonstrated by some of the government statements last week in Geneva at the annual UN CSTD meeting (including the reactions to Nick Thorne's comments). While I sat with Rod at the Nairobi dinner, which was helpful, I still don't have a clear take on how the leadership is thinking about and positioning viz. these developments. And while we tried to start a conversation along these lines at the Nairobi Council-GAC meeting, the less than 30 minutes available were quickly consumed by general statements from a few OECD governments, rather than real engagement. So trying to bridge a little the gap between the external debate on ICANN and ICANN's internal discussions could be highly useful, methinks... Best, Bill On May 21, 2010, at 11:30 PM, Terry L Davis, P.E. wrote:
Stephane
Likewise! And I'm probably not favor a formal agenda for discussions either.
What might be interesting and could likely be interesting for most folks would be discussions about ICANN and Internet governance directions. I suspect the next few years will be both challenging and pivotal for the Internet as we know it; you could even in toss the recent ITU initiatives.
Take care Terry
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 12:22 PM To: Rodin Johnston, Rita Cc: 'Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au'; 'council@gnso.icann.org' Subject: Re: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels
Good to know that the majority of the Board remains in favour of the dinners.
Thanks Rita.
Stéphane
Le 21 mai 2010 à 16:34, Rodin Johnston, Rita a écrit :
Stephane and all -
I very much agree with this sentiment and believe the majority of the board does as well. I'm not sure where this notion began, but bruce and I are in dublin and can discuss with peter. I would not be in favor of discontinuing dinner unless a better option for informal discussions was substituted. Thanks
----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> Cc: GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Fri May 21 10:09:27 2010 Subject: Re: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels
We are talking about the interaction between 2 of ICANN's major decision-making bodies.
I think it's important to keep sight of the usefulness of getting the people from each body talking to each other.
Even when there's no formal agenda, this type of interaction helps make organisations work.
Yes we can keep it formal, but when it's a social event it's often easier for people to meet and get to know each other. That then translates into real benefits for the organisation when it comes to formal work sessions.
As a new councillor, I found the first Board dinner I attended helped take away a lot of the awe and stress I felt at both learning the Council and working with the Board. From informal conversations with Board members, I found them to be much more approachable and in tune with the everyday problems ICANN faces than I had thought. I would never have gotten that in a more formal setting.
I think our joint dinner are an investment we all make to help oil the internal workings of the organisation.
Stéphane
Le 21 mai 2010 à 15:11, Bruce Tonkin a écrit :
Hello All,
I think the approach you suggest for the Board dinner is excellent. To me, these dinners are crucial for us and the opportunity for interaction with Board members they bring. I would hate to see them disappear, but would like to understand why some on the Board feel they should go.
Well here are some issues that get raised:
- the dinners are at the end of a long day of workshops/meetings - so some members are too tired to give important matters appropriate attention
- it is not always clear what the objective is - a general discussion about topics, a social event, discussion about a specific issues that the Board will be making a decision on that week?
- if the process is working properly - the Board will simply be endorsing the recommendations from the Council that have consensus support and should not be getting into the detail of particular policy matters. If there is disagreement amongst the parties in the GNSO - the GNSO should work it out together - not try to get the Board to take sides.
There are some that would prefer a more formal meeting - not aligned with a breakfast/lunch or dinner - where there are materials provided in advance and the Board members can ask questions about the particular issue.
Personally I think a mixture of formal and informal can work. e.g A period of time for a structured discussion with documents provided in advance, and the ability for the Board to ask questions on the documents. An informal eating occasion can then follow that is perhaps optional for the participants to attend to get a better understanding of the issues. This structure used to work quite well when we were doing the new gTLD policy development - the days were spent on policy discussions, and the dinners were an opportunity to break down some barriers in the discussions with no formal agenda, that often led to better results the following day.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
I think the issue of the roles of ICANN versus IGF, ITU or other UN bodies in the Internet governance is the single most important discussion item both with the Board (in the informal or semi-formal meeting) and with GAC (in the formal meeting). For the rest, I endorse Bill's view of focusing in the first two issues of Chuck's original list: DAG 4, including morality and public order (could be a lively discussion) AoC, including A&T RT and next reviews Jaime Wagner -----Mensagem original----- De: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Em nome de William Drake Enviada em: sábado, 22 de maio de 2010 11:11 Para: Terry L Davis, P.E. Cc: "'Stéphane Van Gelder'"; 'Rodin Johnston, Rita'; Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au; council@gnso.icann.org Assunto: Re: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels Hi Terry, I think it'd be more than interesting to talk with boardies about what's going on in the larger international political environment. That includes the ITU stuff, e.g. the October Plenipotentiary Conference in Guadalajara, for which there are various proposals circulating that could directly impact ICANN and its nexus. But it goes beyond this, as demonstrated by some of the government statements last week in Geneva at the annual UN CSTD meeting (including the reactions to Nick Thorne's comments). While I sat with Rod at the Nairobi dinner, which was helpful, I still don't have a clear take on how the leadership is thinking about and positioning viz. these developments. And while we tried to start a conversation along these lines at the Nairobi Council-GAC meeting, the less than 30 minutes available were quickly consumed by general statements from a few OECD governments, rather than real engagement. So trying to bridge a little the gap between the external debate on ICANN a! nd ICANN's internal discussions could be highly useful, methinks... Best, Bill On May 21, 2010, at 11:30 PM, Terry L Davis, P.E. wrote:
Stephane
Likewise! And I'm probably not favor a formal agenda for discussions either.
What might be interesting and could likely be interesting for most folks would be discussions about ICANN and Internet governance directions. I suspect the next few years will be both challenging and pivotal for the Internet as we know it; you could even in toss the recent ITU initiatives.
Take care Terry
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]
On
Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 12:22 PM To: Rodin Johnston, Rita Cc: 'Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au'; 'council@gnso.icann.org' Subject: Re: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels
Good to know that the majority of the Board remains in favour of the dinners.
Thanks Rita.
Stéphane
Le 21 mai 2010 à 16:34, Rodin Johnston, Rita a écrit :
Stephane and all -
I very much agree with this sentiment and believe the majority of the board does as well. I'm not sure where this notion began, but bruce and I are in dublin and can discuss with peter. I would not be in favor of discontinuing dinner unless a better option for informal discussions was substituted. Thanks
----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> Cc: GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Fri May 21 10:09:27 2010 Subject: Re: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels
We are talking about the interaction between 2 of ICANN's major decision-making bodies.
I think it's important to keep sight of the usefulness of getting the people from each body talking to each other.
Even when there's no formal agenda, this type of interaction helps make organisations work.
Yes we can keep it formal, but when it's a social event it's often easier for people to meet and get to know each other. That then translates into real benefits for the organisation when it comes to formal work sessions.
As a new councillor, I found the first Board dinner I attended helped take away a lot of the awe and stress I felt at both learning the Council and working with the Board. From informal conversations with Board members, I found them to be much more approachable and in tune with the everyday problems ICANN faces than I had thought. I would never have gotten that in a more formal setting.
I think our joint dinner are an investment we all make to help oil the internal workings of the organisation.
Stéphane
Le 21 mai 2010 à 15:11, Bruce Tonkin a écrit :
Hello All,
I think the approach you suggest for the Board dinner is excellent. To me, these dinners are crucial for us and the opportunity for interaction with Board members they bring. I would hate to see them disappear, but would like to understand why some on the Board feel they should go.
Well here are some issues that get raised:
- the dinners are at the end of a long day of workshops/meetings - so some members are too tired to give important matters appropriate attention
- it is not always clear what the objective is - a general discussion about topics, a social event, discussion about a specific issues that the Board will be making a decision on that week?
- if the process is working properly - the Board will simply be endorsing the recommendations from the Council that have consensus support and should not be getting into the detail of particular policy matters. If there is disagreement amongst the parties in the GNSO - the GNSO should work it out together - not try to get the Board to take sides.
There are some that would prefer a more formal meeting - not aligned with a breakfast/lunch or dinner - where there are materials provided in advance and the Board members can ask questions about the particular issue.
Personally I think a mixture of formal and informal can work. e.g A period of time for a structured discussion with documents provided in advance, and the ability for the Board to ask questions on the documents. An informal eating occasion can then follow that is perhaps optional for the participants to attend to get a better understanding of the issues. This structure used to work quite well when we were doing the new gTLD policy development - the days were spent on policy discussions, and the dinners were an opportunity to break down some barriers in the discussions with no formal agenda, that often led to better results the following day.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Colleagues, I'm personally not in favour of discussing those general "political" issues in meetings where we as GNSO councillors are officially involved like bourd/council dinner or GAC/council meeting. Our main focus should be policy rather than politics development. So I think DAG4 and AOC offer enough substance to discuss on board/council level. Regarding the ccNSO/GNSO meeting I support to discuss the DNS-CERT/security issue with the main target to highlight and optimize the working structure. Regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Jaime Plug In Gesendet: Montag, 24. Mai 2010 20:56 An: 'William Drake'; 'Terry L Davis, P.E.' Cc: '"'Stéphane Van Gelder'"'; 'Rodin Johnston, Rita'; Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: RES: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels I think the issue of the roles of ICANN versus IGF, ITU or other UN bodies in the Internet governance is the single most important discussion item both with the Board (in the informal or semi-formal meeting) and with GAC (in the formal meeting). For the rest, I endorse Bill's view of focusing in the first two issues of Chuck's original list: * DAG 4, including morality and public order (could be a lively discussion) * AoC, including A&T RT and next reviews Jaime Wagner -----Mensagem original----- De: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Em nome de William Drake Enviada em: sábado, 22 de maio de 2010 11:11 Para: Terry L Davis, P.E. Cc: "'Stéphane Van Gelder'"; 'Rodin Johnston, Rita'; Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au; council@gnso.icann.org Assunto: Re: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels Hi Terry, I think it'd be more than interesting to talk with boardies about what's going on in the larger international political environment. That includes the ITU stuff, e.g. the October Plenipotentiary Conference in Guadalajara, for which there are various proposals circulating that could directly impact ICANN and its nexus. But it goes beyond this, as demonstrated by some of the government statements last week in Geneva at the annual UN CSTD meeting (including the reactions to Nick Thorne's comments). While I sat with Rod at the Nairobi dinner, which was helpful, I still don't have a clear take on how the leadership is thinking about and positioning viz. these developments. And while we tried to start a conversation along these lines at the Nairobi Council-GAC meeting, the less than 30 minutes available were quickly consumed by general statements from a few OECD governments, rather than real engagement. So trying to bridge a little the gap between the external debate on ICANN a! nd ICANN's internal discussions could be highly useful, methinks... Best, Bill On May 21, 2010, at 11:30 PM, Terry L Davis, P.E. wrote:
Stephane
Likewise! And I'm probably not favor a formal agenda for discussions either.
What might be interesting and could likely be interesting for most folks would be discussions about ICANN and Internet governance directions. I suspect the next few years will be both challenging and pivotal for the Internet as we know it; you could even in toss the recent ITU initiatives.
Take care Terry
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]
On
Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 12:22 PM To: Rodin Johnston, Rita Cc: 'Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au'; 'council@gnso.icann.org' Subject: Re: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels
Good to know that the majority of the Board remains in favour of the dinners.
Thanks Rita.
Stéphane
Le 21 mai 2010 à 16:34, Rodin Johnston, Rita a écrit :
Stephane and all -
I very much agree with this sentiment and believe the majority of the board does as well. I'm not sure where this notion began, but bruce and I are in dublin and can discuss with peter. I would not be in favor of discontinuing dinner unless a better option for informal discussions was substituted. Thanks
----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> Cc: GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Fri May 21 10:09:27 2010 Subject: Re: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels
We are talking about the interaction between 2 of ICANN's major decision-making bodies.
I think it's important to keep sight of the usefulness of getting the people from each body talking to each other.
Even when there's no formal agenda, this type of interaction helps make organisations work.
Yes we can keep it formal, but when it's a social event it's often easier for people to meet and get to know each other. That then translates into real benefits for the organisation when it comes to formal work sessions.
As a new councillor, I found the first Board dinner I attended helped take away a lot of the awe and stress I felt at both learning the Council and working with the Board. From informal conversations with Board members, I found them to be much more approachable and in tune with the everyday problems ICANN faces than I had thought. I would never have gotten that in a more formal setting.
I think our joint dinner are an investment we all make to help oil the internal workings of the organisation.
Stéphane
Le 21 mai 2010 à 15:11, Bruce Tonkin a écrit :
Hello All,
I think the approach you suggest for the Board dinner is excellent. To me, these dinners are crucial for us and the opportunity for interaction with Board members they bring. I would hate to see them disappear, but would like to understand why some on the Board feel they should go.
Well here are some issues that get raised:
- the dinners are at the end of a long day of workshops/meetings - so some members are too tired to give important matters appropriate attention
- it is not always clear what the objective is - a general discussion about topics, a social event, discussion about a specific issues that the Board will be making a decision on that week?
- if the process is working properly - the Board will simply be endorsing the recommendations from the Council that have consensus support and should not be getting into the detail of particular policy matters. If there is disagreement amongst the parties in the GNSO - the GNSO should work it out together - not try to get the Board to take sides.
There are some that would prefer a more formal meeting - not aligned with a breakfast/lunch or dinner - where there are materials provided in advance and the Board members can ask questions about the particular issue.
Personally I think a mixture of formal and informal can work. e.g A period of time for a structured discussion with documents provided in advance, and the ability for the Board to ask questions on the documents. An informal eating occasion can then follow that is perhaps optional for the participants to attend to get a better understanding of the issues. This structure used to work quite well when we were doing the new gTLD policy development - the days were spent on policy discussions, and the dinners were an opportunity to break down some barriers in the discussions with no formal agenda, that often led to better results the following day.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Wolf, Do you suggesting the following two topics for the Board/Council dinner as well as the GAC/GNSO meeting? 1. DAG 4, including morality and public order 2. AoC, including A&T RT and next reviews Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de > Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 2:59 AM > To: jaime@corp.plugin.com.br; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch; > tdavis2@speakeasy.net > Cc: stephane.vangelder@indom.com; Rita.Rodin@skadden.com; > Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au; council@gnso.icann.org > Subject: AW: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels > > > Colleagues, > > I'm personally not in favour of discussing those general "political" > issues in meetings where we as GNSO councillors are officially involved > like bourd/council dinner or GAC/council meeting. Our main focus should > be policy rather than politics development. > > So I think DAG4 and AOC offer enough substance to discuss on > board/council level. > > Regarding the ccNSO/GNSO meeting I support to discuss the DNS- > CERT/security issue with the main target to highlight and optimize the > working structure. > > > > Regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] > Im Auftrag von Jaime Plug In > Gesendet: Montag, 24. Mai 2010 20:56 > An: 'William Drake'; 'Terry L Davis, P.E.' > Cc: '"'Stéphane Van Gelder'"'; 'Rodin Johnston, Rita'; > Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au; council@gnso.icann.org > Betreff: RES: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels > > > I think the issue of the roles of ICANN versus IGF, ITU or other UN > bodies > in the Internet governance is the single most important discussion item > both > with the Board (in the informal or semi-formal meeting) and with GAC > (in the > formal meeting). > > For the rest, I endorse Bill's view of focusing in the first two issues > of > Chuck's original list: > > * DAG 4, including morality and public order (could be a lively > discussion) > * AoC, including A&T RT and next reviews > > Jaime Wagner > > -----Mensagem original----- > De: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] > Em > nome de William Drake > Enviada em: sábado, 22 de maio de 2010 11:11 > Para: Terry L Davis, P.E. > Cc: "'Stéphane Van Gelder'"; 'Rodin Johnston, Rita'; > Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au; council@gnso.icann.org > Assunto: Re: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels > > > Hi Terry, > > I think it'd be more than interesting to talk with boardies about > what's > going on in the larger international political environment. That > includes > the ITU stuff, e.g. the October Plenipotentiary Conference in > Guadalajara, > for which there are various proposals circulating that could directly > impact > ICANN and its nexus. But it goes beyond this, as demonstrated by some > of > the government statements last week in Geneva at the annual UN CSTD > meeting > (including the reactions to Nick Thorne's comments). While I sat with > Rod > at the Nairobi dinner, which was helpful, I still don't have a clear > take on > how the leadership is thinking about and positioning viz. these > developments. And while we tried to start a conversation along these > lines > at the Nairobi Council-GAC meeting, the less than 30 minutes available > were > quickly consumed by general statements from a few OECD governments, > rather > than real engagement. So trying to bridge a little the gap between the > external debate on ICANN a! > nd ICANN's internal discussions could be highly useful, methinks... > > Best, > > Bill > > > > On May 21, 2010, at 11:30 PM, Terry L Davis, P.E. wrote: > > > > > Stephane > > > > Likewise! And I'm probably not favor a formal agenda for discussions > > either. > > > > What might be interesting and could likely be interesting for most > folks > > would be discussions about ICANN and Internet governance directions. > I > > suspect the next few years will be both challenging and pivotal for > the > > Internet as we know it; you could even in toss the recent ITU > initiatives. > > > > Take care > > Terry > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > council@gnso.icann.org] > On > > Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder > > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 12:22 PM > > To: Rodin Johnston, Rita > > Cc: 'Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au'; 'council@gnso.icann.org' > > Subject: Re: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels > > > > > > Good to know that the majority of the Board remains in favour of the > > dinners. > > > > Thanks Rita. > > > > Stéphane > > > > Le 21 mai 2010 à 16:34, Rodin Johnston, Rita a écrit : > > > >> Stephane and all - > >> > >> I very much agree with this sentiment and believe the majority of > the > > board does as well. I'm not sure where this notion began, but bruce > and I > > are in dublin and can discuss with peter. I would not be in favor of > > discontinuing dinner unless a better option for informal discussions > was > > substituted. Thanks > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> > >> To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> > >> Cc: GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org> > >> Sent: Fri May 21 10:09:27 2010 > >> Subject: Re: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels > >> > >> > >> We are talking about the interaction between 2 of ICANN's major > > decision-making bodies. > >> > >> I think it's important to keep sight of the usefulness of getting > the > > people from each body talking to each other. > >> > >> Even when there's no formal agenda, this type of interaction helps > make > > organisations work. > >> > >> Yes we can keep it formal, but when it's a social event it's often > easier > > for people to meet and get to know each other. That then translates > into > > real benefits for the organisation when it comes to formal work > sessions. > >> > >> As a new councillor, I found the first Board dinner I attended > helped > take > > away a lot of the awe and stress I felt at both learning the Council > and > > working with the Board. From informal conversations with Board > members, I > > found them to be much more approachable and in tune with the everyday > > problems ICANN faces than I had thought. I would never have gotten > that in > a > > more formal setting. > >> > >> I think our joint dinner are an investment we all make to help oil > the > > internal workings of the organisation. > >> > >> Stéphane > >> > >> Le 21 mai 2010 à 15:11, Bruce Tonkin a écrit : > >> > >>> > >>> Hello All, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>> I think the approach you suggest for the Board dinner is > excellent. > >>> To me, these dinners are crucial for us and the opportunity for > >>> interaction with Board members they bring. I would hate to see them > >>> disappear, but would like to understand why some on the Board feel > they > >>> should go. > >>> > >>> > >>> Well here are some issues that get raised: > >>> > >>> - the dinners are at the end of a long day of workshops/meetings - > so > >>> some members are too tired to give important matters appropriate > >>> attention > >>> > >>> - it is not always clear what the objective is - a general > discussion > >>> about topics, a social event, discussion about a specific issues > that > >>> the Board will be making a decision on that week? > >>> > >>> - if the process is working properly - the Board will simply be > >>> endorsing the recommendations from the Council that have consensus > >>> support and should not be getting into the detail of particular > policy > >>> matters. If there is disagreement amongst the parties in the GNSO > - the > >>> GNSO should work it out together - not try to get the Board to take > >>> sides. > >>> > >>> There are some that would prefer a more formal meeting - not > >>> aligned with a breakfast/lunch or dinner - where there are > materials > >>> provided in advance and the Board members can ask questions about > the > >>> particular issue. > >>> > >>> > >>> Personally I think a mixture of formal and informal can work. e.g > A > >>> period of time for a structured discussion with documents provided > in > >>> advance, and the ability for the Board to ask questions on the > >>> documents. An informal eating occasion can then follow that is > perhaps > >>> optional for the participants to attend to get a better > understanding of > >>> the issues. This structure used to work quite well when we were > doing > >>> the new gTLD policy development - the days were spent on policy > >>> discussions, and the dinners were an opportunity to break down some > >>> barriers in the discussions with no formal agenda, that often led > to > >>> better results the following day. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Bruce Tonkin > >>> > >>> > > > > >
Yes, also with reference to Rosemary Sinclair's suggestion regarding the DNS marketplace. Regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. Mai 2010 14:15 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; jaime@corp.plugin.com.br; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch; tdavis2@speakeasy.net Cc: stephane.vangelder@indom.com; Rita.Rodin@skadden.com; Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: RE: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels Wolf, Do you suggesting the following two topics for the Board/Council dinner as well as the GAC/GNSO meeting? 1. DAG 4, including morality and public order 2. AoC, including A&T RT and next reviews Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de > Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 2:59 AM > To: jaime@corp.plugin.com.br; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch; > tdavis2@speakeasy.net > Cc: stephane.vangelder@indom.com; Rita.Rodin@skadden.com; > Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au; council@gnso.icann.org > Subject: AW: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels > > > Colleagues, > > I'm personally not in favour of discussing those general "political" > issues in meetings where we as GNSO councillors are officially involved > like bourd/council dinner or GAC/council meeting. Our main focus should > be policy rather than politics development. > > So I think DAG4 and AOC offer enough substance to discuss on > board/council level. > > Regarding the ccNSO/GNSO meeting I support to discuss the DNS- > CERT/security issue with the main target to highlight and optimize the > working structure. > > > > Regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] > Im Auftrag von Jaime Plug In > Gesendet: Montag, 24. Mai 2010 20:56 > An: 'William Drake'; 'Terry L Davis, P.E.' > Cc: '"'Stéphane Van Gelder'"'; 'Rodin Johnston, Rita'; > Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au; council@gnso.icann.org > Betreff: RES: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels > > > I think the issue of the roles of ICANN versus IGF, ITU or other UN > bodies > in the Internet governance is the single most important discussion item > both > with the Board (in the informal or semi-formal meeting) and with GAC > (in the > formal meeting). > > For the rest, I endorse Bill's view of focusing in the first two issues > of > Chuck's original list: > > * DAG 4, including morality and public order (could be a lively > discussion) > * AoC, including A&T RT and next reviews > > Jaime Wagner > > -----Mensagem original----- > De: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] > Em > nome de William Drake > Enviada em: sábado, 22 de maio de 2010 11:11 > Para: Terry L Davis, P.E. > Cc: "'Stéphane Van Gelder'"; 'Rodin Johnston, Rita'; > Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au; council@gnso.icann.org > Assunto: Re: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels > > > Hi Terry, > > I think it'd be more than interesting to talk with boardies about > what's > going on in the larger international political environment. That > includes > the ITU stuff, e.g. the October Plenipotentiary Conference in > Guadalajara, > for which there are various proposals circulating that could directly > impact > ICANN and its nexus. But it goes beyond this, as demonstrated by some > of > the government statements last week in Geneva at the annual UN CSTD > meeting > (including the reactions to Nick Thorne's comments). While I sat with > Rod > at the Nairobi dinner, which was helpful, I still don't have a clear > take on > how the leadership is thinking about and positioning viz. these > developments. And while we tried to start a conversation along these > lines > at the Nairobi Council-GAC meeting, the less than 30 minutes available > were > quickly consumed by general statements from a few OECD governments, > rather > than real engagement. So trying to bridge a little the gap between the > external debate on ICANN a! > nd ICANN's internal discussions could be highly useful, methinks... > > Best, > > Bill > > > > On May 21, 2010, at 11:30 PM, Terry L Davis, P.E. wrote: > > > > > Stephane > > > > Likewise! And I'm probably not favor a formal agenda for discussions > > either. > > > > What might be interesting and could likely be interesting for most > folks > > would be discussions about ICANN and Internet governance directions. > I > > suspect the next few years will be both challenging and pivotal for > the > > Internet as we know it; you could even in toss the recent ITU > initiatives. > > > > Take care > > Terry > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > council@gnso.icann.org] > On > > Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder > > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 12:22 PM > > To: Rodin Johnston, Rita > > Cc: 'Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au'; 'council@gnso.icann.org' > > Subject: Re: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels > > > > > > Good to know that the majority of the Board remains in favour of the > > dinners. > > > > Thanks Rita. > > > > Stéphane > > > > Le 21 mai 2010 à 16:34, Rodin Johnston, Rita a écrit : > > > >> Stephane and all - > >> > >> I very much agree with this sentiment and believe the majority of > the > > board does as well. I'm not sure where this notion began, but bruce > and I > > are in dublin and can discuss with peter. I would not be in favor of > > discontinuing dinner unless a better option for informal discussions > was > > substituted. Thanks > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> > >> To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> > >> Cc: GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org> > >> Sent: Fri May 21 10:09:27 2010 > >> Subject: Re: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels > >> > >> > >> We are talking about the interaction between 2 of ICANN's major > > decision-making bodies. > >> > >> I think it's important to keep sight of the usefulness of getting > the > > people from each body talking to each other. > >> > >> Even when there's no formal agenda, this type of interaction helps > make > > organisations work. > >> > >> Yes we can keep it formal, but when it's a social event it's often > easier > > for people to meet and get to know each other. That then translates > into > > real benefits for the organisation when it comes to formal work > sessions. > >> > >> As a new councillor, I found the first Board dinner I attended > helped > take > > away a lot of the awe and stress I felt at both learning the Council > and > > working with the Board. From informal conversations with Board > members, I > > found them to be much more approachable and in tune with the everyday > > problems ICANN faces than I had thought. I would never have gotten > that in > a > > more formal setting. > >> > >> I think our joint dinner are an investment we all make to help oil > the > > internal workings of the organisation. > >> > >> Stéphane > >> > >> Le 21 mai 2010 à 15:11, Bruce Tonkin a écrit : > >> > >>> > >>> Hello All, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>> I think the approach you suggest for the Board dinner is > excellent. > >>> To me, these dinners are crucial for us and the opportunity for > >>> interaction with Board members they bring. I would hate to see them > >>> disappear, but would like to understand why some on the Board feel > they > >>> should go. > >>> > >>> > >>> Well here are some issues that get raised: > >>> > >>> - the dinners are at the end of a long day of workshops/meetings - > so > >>> some members are too tired to give important matters appropriate > >>> attention > >>> > >>> - it is not always clear what the objective is - a general > discussion > >>> about topics, a social event, discussion about a specific issues > that > >>> the Board will be making a decision on that week? > >>> > >>> - if the process is working properly - the Board will simply be > >>> endorsing the recommendations from the Council that have consensus > >>> support and should not be getting into the detail of particular > policy > >>> matters. If there is disagreement amongst the parties in the GNSO > - the > >>> GNSO should work it out together - not try to get the Board to take > >>> sides. > >>> > >>> There are some that would prefer a more formal meeting - not > >>> aligned with a breakfast/lunch or dinner - where there are > materials > >>> provided in advance and the Board members can ask questions about > the > >>> particular issue. > >>> > >>> > >>> Personally I think a mixture of formal and informal can work. e.g > A > >>> period of time for a structured discussion with documents provided > in > >>> advance, and the ability for the Board to ask questions on the > >>> documents. An informal eating occasion can then follow that is > perhaps > >>> optional for the participants to attend to get a better > understanding of > >>> the issues. This structure used to work quite well when we were > doing > >>> the new gTLD policy development - the days were spent on policy > >>> discussions, and the dinners were an opportunity to break down some > >>> barriers in the discussions with no formal agenda, that often led > to > >>> better results the following day. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Bruce Tonkin > >>> > >>> > > > > >
Hello, I endorse what Bill suggested about ICANN and IG in general regarding the relations with ITU etc . Regards Rafik 2010/5/25 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> > > Wolf, > > Do you suggesting the following two topics for the Board/Council dinner as > well as the GAC/GNSO meeting? > > 1. DAG 4, including morality and public order > 2. AoC, including A&T RT and next reviews > > Chuck > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > > council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de > > Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 2:59 AM > > To: jaime@corp.plugin.com.br; william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch; > > tdavis2@speakeasy.net > > Cc: stephane.vangelder@indom.com; Rita.Rodin@skadden.com; > > Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au; council@gnso.icann.org > > Subject: AW: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels > > > > > > Colleagues, > > > > I'm personally not in favour of discussing those general "political" > > issues in meetings where we as GNSO councillors are officially involved > > like bourd/council dinner or GAC/council meeting. Our main focus should > > be policy rather than politics development. > > > > So I think DAG4 and AOC offer enough substance to discuss on > > board/council level. > > > > Regarding the ccNSO/GNSO meeting I support to discuss the DNS- > > CERT/security issue with the main target to highlight and optimize the > > working structure. > > > > > > > > Regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] > > Im Auftrag von Jaime Plug In > > Gesendet: Montag, 24. Mai 2010 20:56 > > An: 'William Drake'; 'Terry L Davis, P.E.' > > Cc: '"'Stéphane Van Gelder'"'; 'Rodin Johnston, Rita'; > > Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au; council@gnso.icann.org > > Betreff: RES: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels > > > > > > I think the issue of the roles of ICANN versus IGF, ITU or other UN > > bodies > > in the Internet governance is the single most important discussion item > > both > > with the Board (in the informal or semi-formal meeting) and with GAC > > (in the > > formal meeting). > > > > For the rest, I endorse Bill's view of focusing in the first two issues > > of > > Chuck's original list: > > > > * DAG 4, including morality and public order (could be a lively > > discussion) > > * AoC, including A&T RT and next reviews > > > > Jaime Wagner > > > > -----Mensagem original----- > > De: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] > > Em > > nome de William Drake > > Enviada em: sábado, 22 de maio de 2010 11:11 > > Para: Terry L Davis, P.E. > > Cc: "'Stéphane Van Gelder'"; 'Rodin Johnston, Rita'; > > Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au; council@gnso.icann.org > > Assunto: Re: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels > > > > > > Hi Terry, > > > > I think it'd be more than interesting to talk with boardies about > > what's > > going on in the larger international political environment. That > > includes > > the ITU stuff, e.g. the October Plenipotentiary Conference in > > Guadalajara, > > for which there are various proposals circulating that could directly > > impact > > ICANN and its nexus. But it goes beyond this, as demonstrated by some > > of > > the government statements last week in Geneva at the annual UN CSTD > > meeting > > (including the reactions to Nick Thorne's comments). While I sat with > > Rod > > at the Nairobi dinner, which was helpful, I still don't have a clear > > take on > > how the leadership is thinking about and positioning viz. these > > developments. And while we tried to start a conversation along these > > lines > > at the Nairobi Council-GAC meeting, the less than 30 minutes available > > were > > quickly consumed by general statements from a few OECD governments, > > rather > > than real engagement. So trying to bridge a little the gap between the > > external debate on ICANN a! > > nd ICANN's internal discussions could be highly useful, methinks... > > > > Best, > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > On May 21, 2010, at 11:30 PM, Terry L Davis, P.E. wrote: > > > > > > > > Stephane > > > > > > Likewise! And I'm probably not favor a formal agenda for discussions > > > either. > > > > > > What might be interesting and could likely be interesting for most > > folks > > > would be discussions about ICANN and Internet governance directions. > > I > > > suspect the next few years will be both challenging and pivotal for > > the > > > Internet as we know it; you could even in toss the recent ITU > > initiatives. > > > > > > Take care > > > Terry > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > > council@gnso.icann.org] > > On > > > Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder > > > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 12:22 PM > > > To: Rodin Johnston, Rita > > > Cc: 'Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au'; 'council@gnso.icann.org' > > > Subject: Re: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels > > > > > > > > > Good to know that the majority of the Board remains in favour of the > > > dinners. > > > > > > Thanks Rita. > > > > > > Stéphane > > > > > > Le 21 mai 2010 à 16:34, Rodin Johnston, Rita a écrit : > > > > > >> Stephane and all - > > >> > > >> I very much agree with this sentiment and believe the majority of > > the > > > board does as well. I'm not sure where this notion began, but bruce > > and I > > > are in dublin and can discuss with peter. I would not be in favor of > > > discontinuing dinner unless a better option for informal discussions > > was > > > substituted. Thanks > > >> > > >> > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > > >> From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> > > >> To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> > > >> Cc: GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org> > > >> Sent: Fri May 21 10:09:27 2010 > > >> Subject: Re: [council] Joint Meeting Topics for Brussels > > >> > > >> > > >> We are talking about the interaction between 2 of ICANN's major > > > decision-making bodies. > > >> > > >> I think it's important to keep sight of the usefulness of getting > > the > > > people from each body talking to each other. > > >> > > >> Even when there's no formal agenda, this type of interaction helps > > make > > > organisations work. > > >> > > >> Yes we can keep it formal, but when it's a social event it's often > > easier > > > for people to meet and get to know each other. That then translates > > into > > > real benefits for the organisation when it comes to formal work > > sessions. > > >> > > >> As a new councillor, I found the first Board dinner I attended > > helped > > take > > > away a lot of the awe and stress I felt at both learning the Council > > and > > > working with the Board. From informal conversations with Board > > members, I > > > found them to be much more approachable and in tune with the everyday > > > problems ICANN faces than I had thought. I would never have gotten > > that in > > a > > > more formal setting. > > >> > > >> I think our joint dinner are an investment we all make to help oil > > the > > > internal workings of the organisation. > > >> > > >> Stéphane > > >> > > >> Le 21 mai 2010 à 15:11, Bruce Tonkin a écrit : > > >> > > >>> > > >>> Hello All, > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>>> I think the approach you suggest for the Board dinner is > > excellent. > > >>> To me, these dinners are crucial for us and the opportunity for > > >>> interaction with Board members they bring. I would hate to see them > > >>> disappear, but would like to understand why some on the Board feel > > they > > >>> should go. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Well here are some issues that get raised: > > >>> > > >>> - the dinners are at the end of a long day of workshops/meetings - > > so > > >>> some members are too tired to give important matters appropriate > > >>> attention > > >>> > > >>> - it is not always clear what the objective is - a general > > discussion > > >>> about topics, a social event, discussion about a specific issues > > that > > >>> the Board will be making a decision on that week? > > >>> > > >>> - if the process is working properly - the Board will simply be > > >>> endorsing the recommendations from the Council that have consensus > > >>> support and should not be getting into the detail of particular > > policy > > >>> matters. If there is disagreement amongst the parties in the GNSO > > - the > > >>> GNSO should work it out together - not try to get the Board to take > > >>> sides. > > >>> > > >>> There are some that would prefer a more formal meeting - not > > >>> aligned with a breakfast/lunch or dinner - where there are > > materials > > >>> provided in advance and the Board members can ask questions about > > the > > >>> particular issue. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Personally I think a mixture of formal and informal can work. e.g > > A > > >>> period of time for a structured discussion with documents provided > > in > > >>> advance, and the ability for the Board to ask questions on the > > >>> documents. An informal eating occasion can then follow that is > > perhaps > > >>> optional for the participants to attend to get a better > > understanding of > > >>> the issues. This structure used to work quite well when we were > > doing > > >>> the new gTLD policy development - the days were spent on policy > > >>> discussions, and the dinners were an opportunity to break down some > > >>> barriers in the discussions with no formal agenda, that often led > > to > > >>> better results the following day. > > >>> > > >>> Regards, > > >>> Bruce Tonkin > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
participants (7)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
Jaime Plug In -
KnobenW＠telekom.de -
Rafik Dammak -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
Terry L Davis, P.E. -
William Drake