[council] Informal conversation

[Joy Liddicoat]

Hi - my apologies for missing this meeting - it was 12am onwards here.
Thanks for your work on this Stephane and Mary's idea of some mechanism(s)
to help build relationships is a good one - whether as observer or liaison
point. Or perhaps a standing item on the GNSO agenda could be: GAC - with a
GAC rep/Chair given the opportunity to attend on specific topics of GNSO/GAC
working methods?
A practical suggestion on the IOC Red Cross matter: GAC makes a fair point
on the intra-GAC issues (and, as Thomas says, GNSO councillors also face
workload challenges). Could we suggest a small GNSO GAC working group on
this specific issue? The group could take forward some of the issues raised
and, perhaps, work together to suggest options/pathways forward for the two
groups to consider?

Joy


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Friday, 28 October 2011 5:49 a.m.
To: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu
Cc: council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] Informal conversation


Good point Mary, I forgot the topic of a liaison. They say they can't do
that, but actually suggest the reverse, i.e. that we send them a liaison!

An interesting suggestion


Stéphane



Le 27 oct. 2011 à 16:39, <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> a écrit :

> Hmm ... isn't this one very good reason why we ought to have GNSO-GAC
liaisons? 
> 
> Also, while I understand the difficulty the GAC may have with nit having
one or two people represent the GAC formally, should we consider inviting
them to appoint an observer or liaison to the task force or WG that Jeff is
leading?
> 
> Thanks for the prompt action and reporting back, Stéphane.
> 
> Cheers
> Mary
> 
> "Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder at indom.com>"
<stephane.vangelder at indom.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> As we discussed during today's wrap-up, I had an informal conversation
with the GAC.
> 
> I passed along the message that there was disappointment at the GAC's
apparent lack of desire for a common effort on the IOC and RC names. The
answer was that the GAC remains extremely challenged when it comes to
participating in joint efforts of this kind. There are workload issues first
and foremost for government reps, but also because of the unique nature of
the GAC it is difficult for any GAC member to participate effectively.
> 
> The point was also made to me that we tend to assume that when we put
something out, either on our mailing list or our website, that is enough for
the GAC to be aware of it. I was told that it is not so, and that there is
no substitute for direct communication. So in that regard, it sounds like
our discussions in today's wrap-up about being seen to be more constructive
and more proactive are spot on.
> 
> With that in mind, I would suggest that we perhaps want to send the draft
letter on the IOC and RC names anyway. The idea being to show that we have
done some thinking about this issue as well (someone made that point during
the wrap-up, I forget who so apologies).
> 
> Also, I was told that unless we write to the GAC to tell them about the
announcement made by ICANN and the registrars and published on the GNSO
mailing list, they don't know about it. As this is a registrar specific
issue, it is perhaps not for the GNSO as a whole to mention. But it is
perhaps worth thinking about.
> 
> The main takeaway I got from the conversation is that we should look to
improve the way we communicate with the outside world (this is not something
I was told, it is my own conclusion).
> 
> Hope this is helpful.
> 
> Get home safe everyone. Enjoyed working with you this week.
> 
> Stéphane
>