[Gac-gnso-cg] Notes from today's GAC-GNSO CG meeting

[Manal Ismail]

It's ok .. Thanks Avri ..
Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 8:32 PM
To: gac-gnso-cg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Notes from today's GAC-GNSO CG meeting

Hi,

Apologies for missing it, had another meeting scheduled against it, but should have remembered to send prior apologies.

avri

On 01-Oct-15 14:22, Marika Konings wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Please find below the notes from today's GAC-GNSO Consultation Group 
> meeting. Please take particular note of the action items listed below.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marika
>
> Notes 01/10:
>
> *3. Review other phases of GNSO PDP and discuss possible other 
> opportunities for GAC early engagement (see first draft of the 
> Initiation and WG phase attached - page 3 and 4)*
>
>   * Overview of Issue Scoping and WG phase provided by Marika,
>     including possible suggestions for early engagement
>   * Makes sense to invite requestor of Preliminary Issue Report to
>     participate. Specific invitation to participate in DT if AC
>     requested Issue Report (if a DT is formed to develop a charter)
>   * Consider what other suggested mechanisms can be used at this step
>     (consider list / inventory)
>   * Informal mechanisms are always available (e.g. communication to
>     GNSO chair if there are certain concerns relating to the charter)
>   * Should the Quick Look Mechanism expand into this phase with
>     regards to input that is provided at an early stage to a WG or is
>     a separate mechanism needed? Should the CG have a role in this?
>     GAC to further consider how to operationalise this aspect.
>     Consider exploring further as part of the joint meeting in Dublin. 
>   * What if after all early engagement, there is still disagreement
>     between GAC and GNSO - part of further stages of the process. It
>     is foreseen in the charter that the CG would also consider what
>     mechanisms could be put in place to deal with a situation in which
>     the GNSO Policy Recommendations do not align with GAC Advice. Hope
>     is that through early engagement mechanisms those situations would
>     be rare, but should nevertheless be considered. 
>   * Should there be a mechanism to facilitate / encourage dialogue if
>     GAC input is not supported by WG in Initial Report? If so, how,
>     what form should that take? Liaison role could be important to
>     ensure effective meetingn of minds between GNSO and GAC and
>     correcting any misunderstanding. Committee that is formed as part
>     of quick look mechanism (which is still under consideration by the
>     GAC, could also play a role.
>   * Should further consideration be given to a GAC 'liaison' / rep to
>     a PDP WG which would allow for regular info sharing with the GAC,
>     noting that such a liaison / rep could not speak on behaf of the
>     GAC unless authorised to do so. 
>
> *Action item*: Everyone encouraged to provide further input and 
> suggestions both on initiation and WG phase.
>
> *4. Plan for review of implementation of Early Engagement 
> recommendations ('Quick Look Mechanism')*
>
>   * Quick look mechanisms has been used for two PDPs to date (next
>     generation RDS and new gTLD Subsequent Procedures)
>   * Quick look input was received earlier than anticipated - is that
>     something that needs to be modified or is it actually  helpful?
>   * Need to formally record communications
>   * Consider requesting feedback as a result of joint session in 
> Dublin
>
> *Action item*: Staff to provide an overview of PDPs for which quick 
> look mechanism has been used to date and provide feedback from a staff 
> perspective
>
> *5. Plan for review of GNSO Liaison to the GAC pilot project*
>
>   * Consider asking GAC/GNSO for initial assessment of whether this
>     role should continue beyond this fiscal year
>   * Work with Mason on review and identification of possible
>     improvements (are there opportunities for enhanced effectiveness
>
> *Action item*: staff to review original 'job' description and put 
> together table format to facilitate review.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gac-gnso-cg mailing list
> Gac-gnso-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac-gnso-cg


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________
Gac-gnso-cg mailing list
Gac-gnso-cg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac-gnso-cg