[Gnso-review-wg] Meeting Schedule and Update at ICANN60

Tue Aug 22 08:58:58 UTC 2017

Just a thought a sumarrised report can be sent and if clarifications are needed then can still be done. Just my view.

> On Aug 22, 2017, at 12:53 PM, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> wrote:
> 
> Thanks very much Julie,
> 
> I agree to not hold an F2F meeting in Abu Dhabi but updating the council that time. Please refer to the council VCs Donna and Heather on whether they could make available a (20 mins) slot on the related agenda. Otherwise at least a written update should be delivered.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
> Am 17.08.2017 um 20:09 schrieb Julie Hedlund:
>> Dear GNSO Review Working Group members,
>> 
>>  
>> Per action item 6 below from the meeting on 17 August, staff confirms that as there will be a regularly scheduled meeting the week before ICANN60 the suggestion is not to request a slot to meet in person at ICANN60 and also that there will likely be conflicts.  Unless there are objections staff will proceed accordingly.
>> 
>>  
>> In addition, staff will request time on the GNSO Council’s working session schedule for a brief update from the WG Chair or Vice Chair (depending on availability and timing).  Staff will prepare for the WG to review draft slides for the update.
>> 
>>  
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Julie
>> 
>>  
>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> Action Items/Discussion Notes 17 August
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Action Items:
>> 
>>  
>> Recommendation 30: Staff will finalize the charter and send it out for a two-week consensus call;
>> Recommendation 31: Staff will incorporate suggested changes based on the discussion on the 17 August call and send the revised version out for further review and discussion;
>> Recommendations 26/27/28/29: Staff will prepare a draft charter;
>> Recommendation 6: Staff will prepare a draft charter;
>> Timeline: Staff will update the timeline for discussion at the call on 31 August;
>> Meeting/Update at ICANN60: Staff will send a note to the list indicating that there will be a regularly scheduled meeting the week before ICANN60 so unless there are objections the suggestion is to not meet in person at ICANN60 as there will likely be conflicts; staff will request a slot in the GNSO Council schedule for an update from the WG on its progress.
>>  
>> Notes:
>> 
>>  
>> 1. Recommendation 30:
>> 
>>  
>> -- Determined that the first part has been done -- the so-called “policy.” 
>> 
>> -- There is a process available in order where the different groups can rely on.
>> 
>> -- Community budget requests can be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/lgSuAg <https://community.icann.org/x/lgSuAg> for those interested.
>> 
>> -- Decisions for FY2017 are posted here: https://community.icann.org/x/3hCOAw <https://community.icann.org/x/3hCOAw>
>>  
>> 2. Recommendation 31:
>> 
>>  
>> -- Either we say this will not be possible or suggest an alternative approach.
>> 
>> -- It is really important to find some negotiated way to have GAC involvement, even if an informal role.  Need to re-write this recommendation to allow informal involvement.  Might agree to observer status.
>> 
>> -- The Consultation Group included the GNSO and the GAC.  What are we trying to accomplish?  A GAC representative cannot represent the whole view of the GAC.
>> 
>> --  Action: Revise the charter to note that the GNSO-GAC Consultation Group has completed its work, note its recommendations and that GAC members cannot act as even informal liaisons, and offer ways that the GAC can become involved (Work Track 5).  Include justification for revising the recommendation.
>> 
>>  
>> From the chat:
>> 
>> Marika Konings: Do note that this is an issue that was also considered by the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group. The GAC is of the view that no one, apart from the GAC Chair, can represent the GAC and as such they are not willing to appoint liaisons to other SO/ACs or WGs.
>> 
>> Marika Konings: it may be worth asking the question again to meet this recommendation, but the response will likely be along similar lines, unless perspectives have changed in the meantime....
>> 
>> Marika Konings: Maybe it is a question for the GAC to see what they would consider feasible and practical as they do seem to want to be more actively engaged in PDPs?
>> 
>> Krishna Seeburn (Kris): We can still recommend  for informal....
>> 
>> Rafik: @marika a question already asked several times to GAC I think :)
>> 
>> Krishna Seeburn (Kris): i thnink observer status could work
>> 
>> Pascal Bekono: Could you define 4.  "Options" ???
>> 
>> Marika Konings: @Rafik - yes, but maybe one day the response is different, and in any case, I don't think this group can decide on what the GAC should be doing or providing, without their agreement ;-)
>> 
>>  
>> 3. Meeting Slot at ICANN60/GNSO Update:
>> 
>>  
>> -- How does that fit with our usual schedule?
>> 
>> -- We do need to deliver a report to the GNSO.  Staff will request a slot.
>> 
>> -- Action: Staff will determine where we are in the schedule and if it is an off week suggest not holding a F2F meeting.  Staff will request a slot for an update to the GNSO.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-review-wg mailing list
>> Gnso-review-wg at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-review-wg at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-review-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-review-wg>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-review-wg mailing list
> Gnso-review-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-review-wg

Kris Seeburn
seeburn.k at gmail.com
www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-wg/attachments/20170822/423b0469/attachment-0001.html>