Strong +1 to this. Sent from my iPhone

On 4 Nov 2016, at 16:31, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@Verisign.com> wrote:

Thanks very much, Mary. I’m sure none of us assumed anything different, and I’m surprised the GAC Chair did.

Best, Keith

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 6:46 AM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Statements made during the GAC-GNSO meeting about the role of ICANN staff in the IGO small group

Dear Councilors,

Several statements were made during the GAC-GNSO meeting that just concluded, concerning my role and participation in the IGO small group discussions. I would like to let you know that I was only brought into the discussions after the group was formed, to provide subject matter expertise and process advice concerning the GNSO and its work. At no time did I participate other than as a staff facilitator – and I did not hold myself out as a representative of the GNSO, or as having any authority to negotiate on behalf of the GNSO Council or the GNSO community.

Mary

Yes, this shot from the GAC chair was very much misplaced. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Drazek, Keith Sent: Friday, November 4, 2016 4:27 PM To: Mary Wong ; GNSO Council List Subject: [council] RE: Statements made during the GAC-GNSO meeting about the role of ICANN staff in the IGO small group Thanks very much, Mary. I’m sure none of us assumed anything different, and I’m surprised the GAC Chair did. Best, Keith From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 6:46 AM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Statements made during the GAC-GNSO meeting about the role of ICANN staff in the IGO small group Dear Councilors, Several statements were made during the GAC-GNSO meeting that just concluded, concerning my role and participation in the IGO small group discussions. I would like to let you know that I was only brought into the discussions after the group was formed, to provide subject matter expertise and process advice concerning the GNSO and its work. At no time did I participate other than as a staff facilitator – and I did not hold myself out as a representative of the GNSO, or as having any authority to negotiate on behalf of the GNSO Council or the GNSO community. Mary

I think Rubens has made a great suggestion here, we should try this. And my sympathies to the current scapegoat, in my view that was unacceptable. I hope David Olive has a little chat with somebody. Stephanie Perrin On 2016-11-04 09:58, Rubens Kuhl wrote:

...

On Nov 4, 2016, at 4:15 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote:

Dear Councilors, Several statements were made during the GAC-GNSO meeting that just concluded, concerning my role and participation in the IGO small group discussions. I would like to let you know that I was only brought into the discussions after the group was formed, to provide subject matter expertise and process advice concerning the GNSO and its work. At no time did I participate other than as a staff facilitator – and I did not hold myself out as a representative of the GNSO, or as having any authority to negotiate on behalf of the GNSO Council or the GNSO community. Mary

Mary,

While we are at it, I think that a quick training / presentation for GAC regarding Consensus Policies / Picket Fence etc. would be in order. I got the impression today that GAC believes ICANN Board could make contracted parties do anything they wanted thru acceptance of GAC Advice, but they probably need to be informed that only GNSO PDPs followed to the letter of GNSO Operating Procedures have binding effect.

But good luck finding someone willing to make such training and becoming the next scapegoat... ;-)

Rubens