Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today's GAC-GNSO Consultation Group meeting. As requested, you'll find attached the ccNSO triage template as well as process flow. Note that you can find the decisions based on the triage committee's recommendations here: http://ccnso.icann.org/about/council/decisions.htm. The next meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday 16 December at 14.00 UTC. Note that following that, meetings will be scheduled for Tuesday 6 January, 20 January and 3 February. Best regards, Marika Notes 02 December 2014: GAC Counterpart to the GNSO Liaison * Suzanne Radell to serve as the counterpoint / contact point for the GNSO liaison to the GAC * IGO/INGO Curative Rights to serve as a test case for GNSO-GAC collaboration / engagement GAC Early engagement in new PDPs * Review of flow chart * Would it be possible for the GAC to review preliminary Issue Report and provide substantive input within the timeframe of the public comment forum? Public comment forum typically runs for 21 + 21 days - although if no input is received or known to be forthcoming, it may close as well after 21 days. Would a F2F meeting be needed by the GAC to provide such substantive input in order to discuss and approve? * Relationship between triage and quick look - quick look mechanism can be used by triage committee as one of the options to deal with a request * Prepare a set of key questions derived from the flow chart that CG may take back to their respective groups * Could quick look mechanism be used by the GAC intersessionally or does it require a F2F meeting? * Are there triggers on the GNSO side that we could agree to - if the GNSO knows up front that there is a connection to national law or international law that GAC needs to be involved? Some of this information may be provided as part of the request for an Issue Report. * Quick look mechanism serves dual purpose - first of all puts GNSO on notice that GAC input is forthcoming while on the other hand it allows the GAC to commence preparation of substantive input * Trial period to use this mechanism following a review which may result in modifications as needed * Triage is for the GAC to consider although CG could include it as a suggestion looking at the ccNSO model * Send further information on ccNSO triage to CG * Could GAC input also be considered as part of the charter drafting input? If there is a DT to develop a charter, a member of the QL commitee could be invited to participate or input could be provided by the GNSO liaison to the GAC? * What are the implications of red, orange, green flags and what actions would need to be taken by GAC / GNSO? Expand on that in proposal. * Update flow chart based on points made and provide annotation / covering note that explains in further detail what the proposal is and how it is expected to be implementated. Include questions that need to be addressed and based on that input make further refinements and implement. * Provide information as well on how it would have looked like in previous PDPs - 'this is how it is meant to work in practice' GAC-GNSO dialogue on ongoing topics * Mason to send questions from PDP WG to Suzanna and Mark today - should also be sent to Thomas and loop in NGPC. Take into account that there are two different sets of considerations, even if subject is related (curative rights PDP and propection of IGO/INGO identifiers) * Not necessarily test case as PDP is already underway (so not early engagement) Next Meeting * Meetings confirmed for 3 February, 20 January, 6 January and 16 December. * Confirm closer to the date whether meeting on 3 February will be necessary. * Consider scheduling meeting around lunch time to encourage participation. Possibly on Sunday as part of the GNSO Working Session or alternatively on Monday.