Many thanks Marika and Olof for a very useful and timely document .. Hope it encourages members to volunteer to lead the work of this track .. I have discussed with Jonathan and we both feel it would be a good idea to pursue a budget request, specially that it will not oblige us to go down that route but merely provide us with the means to do so if we choose .. Please let us know what you think .. Kind Regards --Manal From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 3:49 PM To: GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org Subject: [Gac-gnso-cg] Reverse liaison Dear All, Following Suzanne's suggestion that staff could possibly put some ideas together in relation to the concept of a reverse liaison, Olof and I had a little brainstorm and came up with the attached which as a first step tries to identify what the respective objectives and expectations are. Fleshing out that part of the conversation further may assist in determining whether or not a 'reverse liaison' would be the best mechanism to achieve the expectations. We also tried to identify a number of questions that would need to be addressed should it be determined that a liaison is the way to go, as well as some possible alternatives that could be considered should it be decided that a liaison is not the most effective mechanism to achieve these objectives. As the issue of funding of a possible liaison has come up on various occasions, Olof and I have also discussed whether it would be an idea to submit a special budget request on behalf of the GNSO and GAC that would foresee for funding for a liaison to attend the ICANN meetings in FY15. This could be presented as a pilot project which would allow the GNSO-GAC to experiment with this position and consider at the end of FY15 whether this should be continued as a pilot, transformed into a fixed funded slot or discarded. Obviously, we are still in the early phases of determining whether a liaison is the way to go and the nature of that role, but unfortunately, the deadline for special budget requests is 7 March. If you all think this would be a helpful approach, Olof and I could go ahead and complete the required forms for your review, noting that at any point the GNSO-GAC could decide to withdraw the request should a different approach be pursued. As noted by Mikey, the group is still looking for topic leads to address this issue, so hopefully this may encourage some of you to come forward. We look forward to receiving your feedback. Olof & Marika
Many thanks to all of you that have been working on this track. I must say that I started to respond to some of the questions raised, to trigger the debate on the reverse liaison but the proposal put forward by Manal seems the most appropriate one and I do support it. Moreover we have to innovate and the reverse liaison or whatever his/her denomination will be can be an interesting approach at least as a trial. Best, Ana Sent from my iPhone On 11/01/2014, at 18:11, "Manal Ismail" <manal@tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>> wrote: Many thanks Marika and Olof for a very useful and timely document .. Hope it encourages members to volunteer to lead the work of this track .. I have discussed with Jonathan and we both feel it would be a good idea to pursue a budget request, specially that it will not oblige us to go down that route but merely provide us with the means to do so if we choose .. Please let us know what you think .. Kind Regards --Manal From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 3:49 PM To: GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org<mailto:GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org> Subject: [Gac-gnso-cg] Reverse liaison Dear All, Following Suzanne's suggestion that staff could possibly put some ideas together in relation to the concept of a reverse liaison, Olof and I had a little brainstorm and came up with the attached which as a first step tries to identify what the respective objectives and expectations are. Fleshing out that part of the conversation further may assist in determining whether or not a 'reverse liaison' would be the best mechanism to achieve the expectations. We also tried to identify a number of questions that would need to be addressed should it be determined that a liaison is the way to go, as well as some possible alternatives that could be considered should it be decided that a liaison is not the most effective mechanism to achieve these objectives. As the issue of funding of a possible liaison has come up on various occasions, Olof and I have also discussed whether it would be an idea to submit a special budget request on behalf of the GNSO and GAC that would foresee for funding for a liaison to attend the ICANN meetings in FY15. This could be presented as a pilot project which would allow the GNSO-GAC to experiment with this position and consider at the end of FY15 whether this should be continued as a pilot, transformed into a fixed funded slot or discarded. Obviously, we are still in the early phases of determining whether a liaison is the way to go and the nature of that role, but unfortunately, the deadline for special budget requests is 7 March. If you all think this would be a helpful approach, Olof and I could go ahead and complete the required forms for your review, noting that at any point the GNSO-GAC could decide to withdraw the request should a different approach be pursued. As noted by Mikey, the group is still looking for topic leads to address this issue, so hopefully this may encourage some of you to come forward. We look forward to receiving your feedback. Olof & Marika _______________________________________________ Gac-gnso-cg mailing list Gac-gnso-cg@icann.org<mailto:Gac-gnso-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac-gnso-cg
Dear all, Could somebody explain me more in depth why should the GNSO liaison to the GAC needs to be funded? GNSO people would attend ICANN meetings in any case. Why does this task need to be paid? The liaison doesn´t need to be present at all GAC sessions, just those which are interesting for the GNSO. Thus, he or she can also attend part of the GNSO meetings. Thank you for your further information, Gema De: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Manal Ismail Enviado el: sábado, 11 de enero de 2014 19:11 Para: Marika Konings; GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Reverse liaison Many thanks Marika and Olof for a very useful and timely document .. Hope it encourages members to volunteer to lead the work of this track .. I have discussed with Jonathan and we both feel it would be a good idea to pursue a budget request, specially that it will not oblige us to go down that route but merely provide us with the means to do so if we choose .. Please let us know what you think .. Kind Regards --Manal From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 3:49 PM To: GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org<mailto:GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org> Subject: [Gac-gnso-cg] Reverse liaison Dear All, Following Suzanne's suggestion that staff could possibly put some ideas together in relation to the concept of a reverse liaison, Olof and I had a little brainstorm and came up with the attached which as a first step tries to identify what the respective objectives and expectations are. Fleshing out that part of the conversation further may assist in determining whether or not a 'reverse liaison' would be the best mechanism to achieve the expectations. We also tried to identify a number of questions that would need to be addressed should it be determined that a liaison is the way to go, as well as some possible alternatives that could be considered should it be decided that a liaison is not the most effective mechanism to achieve these objectives. As the issue of funding of a possible liaison has come up on various occasions, Olof and I have also discussed whether it would be an idea to submit a special budget request on behalf of the GNSO and GAC that would foresee for funding for a liaison to attend the ICANN meetings in FY15. This could be presented as a pilot project which would allow the GNSO-GAC to experiment with this position and consider at the end of FY15 whether this should be continued as a pilot, transformed into a fixed funded slot or discarded. Obviously, we are still in the early phases of determining whether a liaison is the way to go and the nature of that role, but unfortunately, the deadline for special budget requests is 7 March. If you all think this would be a helpful approach, Olof and I could go ahead and complete the required forms for your review, noting that at any point the GNSO-GAC could decide to withdraw the request should a different approach be pursued. As noted by Mikey, the group is still looking for topic leads to address this issue, so hopefully this may encourage some of you to come forward. We look forward to receiving your feedback. Olof & Marika
Dear Gema, I'm not certainly the right person to reply to your question but I can only react on the basis on the email I sent on this question. As far as I understand we may be talking about someone that knows quite well GNSO and that could be a Councilor that would have step down recently from GNSO Council. As far as I know these persons are funded by ICANN, but maybe I'm totally wrong, as I am not familiar with those procedures. So, the point would be not to lose the quality of the liaison even if I think that maybe the funding will not be the main point here but the role of such liaison person. On the other side, as almost all the GAC sessions are open he/she can attend GAC meetings all the time but again the point here is to improve the work relationship between GAC and GNSO and that implies a different work approach. Wishing you all a great week, Ana From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria Sent: segunda-feira, 13 de Janeiro de 2014 12:09 To: Manal Ismail; Marika Konings; GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Reverse liaison Dear all, Could somebody explain me more in depth why should the GNSO liaison to the GAC needs to be funded? GNSO people would attend ICANN meetings in any case. Why does this task need to be paid? The liaison doesn´t need to be present at all GAC sessions, just those which are interesting for the GNSO. Thus, he or she can also attend part of the GNSO meetings. Thank you for your further information, Gema De: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Manal Ismail Enviado el: sábado, 11 de enero de 2014 19:11 Para: Marika Konings; GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org<mailto:GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org> Asunto: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Reverse liaison Many thanks Marika and Olof for a very useful and timely document .. Hope it encourages members to volunteer to lead the work of this track .. I have discussed with Jonathan and we both feel it would be a good idea to pursue a budget request, specially that it will not oblige us to go down that route but merely provide us with the means to do so if we choose .. Please let us know what you think .. Kind Regards --Manal From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 3:49 PM To: GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org<mailto:GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org> Subject: [Gac-gnso-cg] Reverse liaison Dear All, Following Suzanne's suggestion that staff could possibly put some ideas together in relation to the concept of a reverse liaison, Olof and I had a little brainstorm and came up with the attached which as a first step tries to identify what the respective objectives and expectations are. Fleshing out that part of the conversation further may assist in determining whether or not a 'reverse liaison' would be the best mechanism to achieve the expectations. We also tried to identify a number of questions that would need to be addressed should it be determined that a liaison is the way to go, as well as some possible alternatives that could be considered should it be decided that a liaison is not the most effective mechanism to achieve these objectives. As the issue of funding of a possible liaison has come up on various occasions, Olof and I have also discussed whether it would be an idea to submit a special budget request on behalf of the GNSO and GAC that would foresee for funding for a liaison to attend the ICANN meetings in FY15. This could be presented as a pilot project which would allow the GNSO-GAC to experiment with this position and consider at the end of FY15 whether this should be continued as a pilot, transformed into a fixed funded slot or discarded. Obviously, we are still in the early phases of determining whether a liaison is the way to go and the nature of that role, but unfortunately, the deadline for special budget requests is 7 March. If you all think this would be a helpful approach, Olof and I could go ahead and complete the required forms for your review, noting that at any point the GNSO-GAC could decide to withdraw the request should a different approach be pursued. As noted by Mikey, the group is still looking for topic leads to address this issue, so hopefully this may encourage some of you to come forward. We look forward to receiving your feedback. Olof & Marika
Thanks, Let me see if I can help here. The idea was / is for the GNSO to provide a knowledgeable (someone well familiar with the Council and current policy development work and processes) person/s. The thinking then went that such a person or persons would likely have recently spent one or more terms on the GNSO Council. In terms of funding, ICANN funds the (ICANN meeting related) travel and hotel of all GNSO Councillors. A recently retired councillor would no longer be in receipt of such funding. Therefore, the proposal was to motivate for ICANN to fund the travel and hotel of such a (volunteer) person such that they could readily fill the role of reverse liason. The proposal was not (to date) to remunerate the role in any way. I trust that helps clarify thinking to date. Jonathan From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ana Neves Sent: 13 January 2014 12:28 To: Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Manal Ismail; Marika Konings; GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Reverse liaison Dear Gema, Im not certainly the right person to reply to your question but I can only react on the basis on the email I sent on this question. As far as I understand we may be talking about someone that knows quite well GNSO and that could be a Councilor that would have step down recently from GNSO Council. As far as I know these persons are funded by ICANN, but maybe Im totally wrong, as I am not familiar with those procedures. So, the point would be not to lose the quality of the liaison even if I think that maybe the funding will not be the main point here but the role of such liaison person. On the other side, as almost all the GAC sessions are open he/she can attend GAC meetings all the time but again the point here is to improve the work relationship between GAC and GNSO and that implies a different work approach. Wishing you all a great week, Ana From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria Sent: segunda-feira, 13 de Janeiro de 2014 12:09 To: Manal Ismail; Marika Konings; GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Reverse liaison Dear all, Could somebody explain me more in depth why should the GNSO liaison to the GAC needs to be funded? GNSO people would attend ICANN meetings in any case. Why does this task need to be paid? The liaison doesn´t need to be present at all GAC sessions, just those which are interesting for the GNSO. Thus, he or she can also attend part of the GNSO meetings. Thank you for your further information, Gema De: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Manal Ismail Enviado el: sábado, 11 de enero de 2014 19:11 Para: Marika Konings; GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Reverse liaison Many thanks Marika and Olof for a very useful and timely document .. Hope it encourages members to volunteer to lead the work of this track .. I have discussed with Jonathan and we both feel it would be a good idea to pursue a budget request, specially that it will not oblige us to go down that route but merely provide us with the means to do so if we choose .. Please let us know what you think .. Kind Regards --Manal From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 3:49 PM To: GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org Subject: [Gac-gnso-cg] Reverse liaison Dear All, Following Suzanne's suggestion that staff could possibly put some ideas together in relation to the concept of a reverse liaison, Olof and I had a little brainstorm and came up with the attached which as a first step tries to identify what the respective objectives and expectations are. Fleshing out that part of the conversation further may assist in determining whether or not a 'reverse liaison' would be the best mechanism to achieve the expectations. We also tried to identify a number of questions that would need to be addressed should it be determined that a liaison is the way to go, as well as some possible alternatives that could be considered should it be decided that a liaison is not the most effective mechanism to achieve these objectives. As the issue of funding of a possible liaison has come up on various occasions, Olof and I have also discussed whether it would be an idea to submit a special budget request on behalf of the GNSO and GAC that would foresee for funding for a liaison to attend the ICANN meetings in FY15. This could be presented as a pilot project which would allow the GNSO-GAC to experiment with this position and consider at the end of FY15 whether this should be continued as a pilot, transformed into a fixed funded slot or discarded. Obviously, we are still in the early phases of determining whether a liaison is the way to go and the nature of that role, but unfortunately, the deadline for special budget requests is 7 March. If you all think this would be a helpful approach, Olof and I could go ahead and complete the required forms for your review, noting that at any point the GNSO-GAC could decide to withdraw the request should a different approach be pursued. As noted by Mikey, the group is still looking for topic leads to address this issue, so hopefully this may encourage some of you to come forward. We look forward to receiving your feedback. Olof & Marika
Thanks, Jonathan, that was my understanding. Best, Ana From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: segunda-feira, 13 de Janeiro de 2014 15:44 To: Ana Neves; 'Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria'; 'Manal Ismail'; 'Marika Konings'; GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gac-gnso-cg] Reverse liaison Thanks, Let me see if I can help here. The idea was / is for the GNSO to provide a knowledgeable (someone well familiar with the Council and current policy development work and processes) person/s. The thinking then went that such a person or persons would likely have recently spent one or more terms on the GNSO Council. In terms of funding, ICANN funds the (ICANN meeting related) travel and hotel of all GNSO Councillors. A recently retired councillor would no longer be in receipt of such funding. Therefore, the proposal was to motivate for ICANN to fund the travel and hotel of such a (volunteer) person such that they could readily fill the role of reverse liason. The proposal was not (to date) to remunerate the role in any way. I trust that helps clarify thinking to date. Jonathan From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ana Neves Sent: 13 January 2014 12:28 To: Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Manal Ismail; Marika Konings; GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org<mailto:GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Reverse liaison Dear Gema, I'm not certainly the right person to reply to your question but I can only react on the basis on the email I sent on this question. As far as I understand we may be talking about someone that knows quite well GNSO and that could be a Councilor that would have step down recently from GNSO Council. As far as I know these persons are funded by ICANN, but maybe I'm totally wrong, as I am not familiar with those procedures. So, the point would be not to lose the quality of the liaison even if I think that maybe the funding will not be the main point here but the role of such liaison person. On the other side, as almost all the GAC sessions are open he/she can attend GAC meetings all the time but again the point here is to improve the work relationship between GAC and GNSO and that implies a different work approach. Wishing you all a great week, Ana From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria Sent: segunda-feira, 13 de Janeiro de 2014 12:09 To: Manal Ismail; Marika Konings; GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org<mailto:GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Reverse liaison Dear all, Could somebody explain me more in depth why should the GNSO liaison to the GAC needs to be funded? GNSO people would attend ICANN meetings in any case. Why does this task need to be paid? The liaison doesn´t need to be present at all GAC sessions, just those which are interesting for the GNSO. Thus, he or she can also attend part of the GNSO meetings. Thank you for your further information, Gema De: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Manal Ismail Enviado el: sábado, 11 de enero de 2014 19:11 Para: Marika Konings; GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org<mailto:GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org> Asunto: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Reverse liaison Many thanks Marika and Olof for a very useful and timely document .. Hope it encourages members to volunteer to lead the work of this track .. I have discussed with Jonathan and we both feel it would be a good idea to pursue a budget request, specially that it will not oblige us to go down that route but merely provide us with the means to do so if we choose .. Please let us know what you think .. Kind Regards --Manal From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 3:49 PM To: GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org<mailto:GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org> Subject: [Gac-gnso-cg] Reverse liaison Dear All, Following Suzanne's suggestion that staff could possibly put some ideas together in relation to the concept of a reverse liaison, Olof and I had a little brainstorm and came up with the attached which as a first step tries to identify what the respective objectives and expectations are. Fleshing out that part of the conversation further may assist in determining whether or not a 'reverse liaison' would be the best mechanism to achieve the expectations. We also tried to identify a number of questions that would need to be addressed should it be determined that a liaison is the way to go, as well as some possible alternatives that could be considered should it be decided that a liaison is not the most effective mechanism to achieve these objectives. As the issue of funding of a possible liaison has come up on various occasions, Olof and I have also discussed whether it would be an idea to submit a special budget request on behalf of the GNSO and GAC that would foresee for funding for a liaison to attend the ICANN meetings in FY15. This could be presented as a pilot project which would allow the GNSO-GAC to experiment with this position and consider at the end of FY15 whether this should be continued as a pilot, transformed into a fixed funded slot or discarded. Obviously, we are still in the early phases of determining whether a liaison is the way to go and the nature of that role, but unfortunately, the deadline for special budget requests is 7 March. If you all think this would be a helpful approach, Olof and I could go ahead and complete the required forms for your review, noting that at any point the GNSO-GAC could decide to withdraw the request should a different approach be pursued. As noted by Mikey, the group is still looking for topic leads to address this issue, so hopefully this may encourage some of you to come forward. We look forward to receiving your feedback. Olof & Marika
On 13 Jan 2014, at 8:08 pm, Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria <GCAMPILLOS@minetur.es> wrote:
Dear all,
Could somebody explain me more in depth why should the GNSO liaison to the GAC needs to be funded? GNSO people would attend ICANN meetings in any case. Why does this task need to be paid? The liaison doesn´t need to be present at all GAC sessions, just those which are interesting for the GNSO. Thus, he or she can also attend part of the GNSO meetings.
The assumption is that being a GNSO councillor is sufficiently time consuming as to allow only very minimal time for liaison with the GAC. A liaison who attended only GAC sessions that did not clash with important council sessions would be of very limited use. And given how much time the GAC spends discussing new gTLDs, a great deal of their meetings are relevant to the GNSO - any discussion relevant to gTLDs is potentially relevant to the GNSO. So the liaison would be in addition to the existing councillors, and would spend a lot of their time at ICANN meetings in the GAC, including some time normally spent on council business (or constituency or stakeholder group sessions, which councillors are normally expected to attend to ensure they are able to communicate the views of those they represent). Regards David
Thank you for your further information,
Gema
De: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Manal Ismail Enviado el: sábado, 11 de enero de 2014 19:11 Para: Marika Konings; GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Reverse liaison
Many thanks Marika and Olof for a very useful and timely document .. Hope it encourages members to volunteer to lead the work of this track .. I have discussed with Jonathan and we both feel it would be a good idea to pursue a budget request, specially that it will not oblige us to go down that route but merely provide us with the means to do so if we choose ..
Please let us know what you think ..
Kind Regards --Manal
From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 3:49 PM To: GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org Subject: [Gac-gnso-cg] Reverse liaison
Dear All,
Following Suzanne's suggestion that staff could possibly put some ideas together in relation to the concept of a reverse liaison, Olof and I had a little brainstorm and came up with the attached which as a first step tries to identify what the respective objectives and expectations are. Fleshing out that part of the conversation further may assist in determining whether or not a 'reverse liaison' would be the best mechanism to achieve the expectations. We also tried to identify a number of questions that would need to be addressed should it be determined that a liaison is the way to go, as well as some possible alternatives that could be considered should it be decided that a liaison is not the most effective mechanism to achieve these objectives.
As the issue of funding of a possible liaison has come up on various occasions, Olof and I have also discussed whether it would be an idea to submit a special budget request on behalf of the GNSO and GAC that would foresee for funding for a liaison to attend the ICANN meetings in FY15. This could be presented as a pilot project which would allow the GNSO-GAC to experiment with this position and consider at the end of FY15 whether this should be continued as a pilot, transformed into a fixed funded slot or discarded. Obviously, we are still in the early phases of determining whether a liaison is the way to go and the nature of that role, but unfortunately, the deadline for special budget requests is 7 March. If you all think this would be a helpful approach, Olof and I could go ahead and complete the required forms for your review, noting that at any point the GNSO-GAC could decide to withdraw the request should a different approach be pursued.
As noted by Mikey, the group is still looking for topic leads to address this issue, so hopefully this may encourage some of you to come forward.
We look forward to receiving your feedback.
Olof & Marika _______________________________________________ Gac-gnso-cg mailing list Gac-gnso-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac-gnso-cg
Many thanks Jonathan and David for the clarification .. Kind Regards --Manal From: David Cake [mailto:dave@difference.com.au] Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:31 AM To: Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria Cc: Manal Ismail; Marika Konings; GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Reverse liaison On 13 Jan 2014, at 8:08 pm, Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria <GCAMPILLOS@minetur.es> wrote: Dear all, Could somebody explain me more in depth why should the GNSO liaison to the GAC needs to be funded? GNSO people would attend ICANN meetings in any case. Why does this task need to be paid? The liaison doesn´t need to be present at all GAC sessions, just those which are interesting for the GNSO. Thus, he or she can also attend part of the GNSO meetings. The assumption is that being a GNSO councillor is sufficiently time consuming as to allow only very minimal time for liaison with the GAC. A liaison who attended only GAC sessions that did not clash with important council sessions would be of very limited use. And given how much time the GAC spends discussing new gTLDs, a great deal of their meetings are relevant to the GNSO - any discussion relevant to gTLDs is potentially relevant to the GNSO. So the liaison would be in addition to the existing councillors, and would spend a lot of their time at ICANN meetings in the GAC, including some time normally spent on council business (or constituency or stakeholder group sessions, which councillors are normally expected to attend to ensure they are able to communicate the views of those they represent). Regards David Thank you for your further information, Gema De: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Manal Ismail Enviado el: sábado, 11 de enero de 2014 19:11 Para: Marika Konings; GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Reverse liaison Many thanks Marika and Olof for a very useful and timely document .. Hope it encourages members to volunteer to lead the work of this track .. I have discussed with Jonathan and we both feel it would be a good idea to pursue a budget request, specially that it will not oblige us to go down that route but merely provide us with the means to do so if we choose .. Please let us know what you think .. Kind Regards --Manal From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 3:49 PM To: GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org <mailto:GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org> Subject: [Gac-gnso-cg] Reverse liaison Dear All, Following Suzanne's suggestion that staff could possibly put some ideas together in relation to the concept of a reverse liaison, Olof and I had a little brainstorm and came up with the attached which as a first step tries to identify what the respective objectives and expectations are. Fleshing out that part of the conversation further may assist in determining whether or not a 'reverse liaison' would be the best mechanism to achieve the expectations. We also tried to identify a number of questions that would need to be addressed should it be determined that a liaison is the way to go, as well as some possible alternatives that could be considered should it be decided that a liaison is not the most effective mechanism to achieve these objectives. As the issue of funding of a possible liaison has come up on various occasions, Olof and I have also discussed whether it would be an idea to submit a special budget request on behalf of the GNSO and GAC that would foresee for funding for a liaison to attend the ICANN meetings in FY15. This could be presented as a pilot project which would allow the GNSO-GAC to experiment with this position and consider at the end of FY15 whether this should be continued as a pilot, transformed into a fixed funded slot or discarded. Obviously, we are still in the early phases of determining whether a liaison is the way to go and the nature of that role, but unfortunately, the deadline for special budget requests is 7 March. If you all think this would be a helpful approach, Olof and I could go ahead and complete the required forms for your review, noting that at any point the GNSO-GAC could decide to withdraw the request should a different approach be pursued. As noted by Mikey, the group is still looking for topic leads to address this issue, so hopefully this may encourage some of you to come forward. We look forward to receiving your feedback. Olof & Marika _______________________________________________ Gac-gnso-cg mailing list Gac-gnso-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac-gnso-cg
Thank you all who have explained to me the rationale for funding the reverse liaison. I didn´t know GNSO councilors received compensation for their lodging and travel expenses. Now, it´s clear to me and I don´t oppose to apply for one of those subsidies ad cautelam. Best regards, Gema De: David Cake [mailto:dave@difference.com.au] Enviado el: martes, 14 de enero de 2014 3:31 Para: Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria CC: Manal Ismail; Marika Konings; GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Reverse liaison On 13 Jan 2014, at 8:08 pm, Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria <GCAMPILLOS@minetur.es<mailto:GCAMPILLOS@minetur.es>> wrote: Dear all, Could somebody explain me more in depth why should the GNSO liaison to the GAC needs to be funded? GNSO people would attend ICANN meetings in any case. Why does this task need to be paid? The liaison doesn´t need to be present at all GAC sessions, just those which are interesting for the GNSO. Thus, he or she can also attend part of the GNSO meetings. The assumption is that being a GNSO councillor is sufficiently time consuming as to allow only very minimal time for liaison with the GAC. A liaison who attended only GAC sessions that did not clash with important council sessions would be of very limited use. And given how much time the GAC spends discussing new gTLDs, a great deal of their meetings are relevant to the GNSO - any discussion relevant to gTLDs is potentially relevant to the GNSO. So the liaison would be in addition to the existing councillors, and would spend a lot of their time at ICANN meetings in the GAC, including some time normally spent on council business (or constituency or stakeholder group sessions, which councillors are normally expected to attend to ensure they are able to communicate the views of those they represent). Regards David Thank you for your further information, Gema De: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Manal Ismail Enviado el: sábado, 11 de enero de 2014 19:11 Para: Marika Konings; GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org<mailto:GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org> Asunto: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Reverse liaison Many thanks Marika and Olof for a very useful and timely document .. Hope it encourages members to volunteer to lead the work of this track .. I have discussed with Jonathan and we both feel it would be a good idea to pursue a budget request, specially that it will not oblige us to go down that route but merely provide us with the means to do so if we choose .. Please let us know what you think .. Kind Regards --Manal From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 3:49 PM To: GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org<mailto:GAC-GNSO-CG@icann.org> Subject: [Gac-gnso-cg] Reverse liaison Dear All, Following Suzanne's suggestion that staff could possibly put some ideas together in relation to the concept of a reverse liaison, Olof and I had a little brainstorm and came up with the attached which as a first step tries to identify what the respective objectives and expectations are. Fleshing out that part of the conversation further may assist in determining whether or not a 'reverse liaison' would be the best mechanism to achieve the expectations. We also tried to identify a number of questions that would need to be addressed should it be determined that a liaison is the way to go, as well as some possible alternatives that could be considered should it be decided that a liaison is not the most effective mechanism to achieve these objectives. As the issue of funding of a possible liaison has come up on various occasions, Olof and I have also discussed whether it would be an idea to submit a special budget request on behalf of the GNSO and GAC that would foresee for funding for a liaison to attend the ICANN meetings in FY15. This could be presented as a pilot project which would allow the GNSO-GAC to experiment with this position and consider at the end of FY15 whether this should be continued as a pilot, transformed into a fixed funded slot or discarded. Obviously, we are still in the early phases of determining whether a liaison is the way to go and the nature of that role, but unfortunately, the deadline for special budget requests is 7 March. If you all think this would be a helpful approach, Olof and I could go ahead and complete the required forms for your review, noting that at any point the GNSO-GAC could decide to withdraw the request should a different approach be pursued. As noted by Mikey, the group is still looking for topic leads to address this issue, so hopefully this may encourage some of you to come forward. We look forward to receiving your feedback. Olof & Marika _______________________________________________ Gac-gnso-cg mailing list Gac-gnso-cg@icann.org<mailto:Gac-gnso-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac-gnso-cg
participants (5)
-
Ana Neves -
Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria -
David Cake -
Jonathan Robinson -
Manal Ismail