[council] Action items from Prague / GNSO Review

[Stéphane Van Gelder]

Is there support from others for the creation of a group?

I would think that the group would need to be formalised as a DT, with a charter. Although you may wish to bring the review forward Wendy, others clearly feel we should be doing exactly the opposite. With such strong divergence of views, we must ensure that the mechanism we use to discuss this issue is unambiguous and accountable.

Stéphane

Envoyé de mon iPhone4

Le 6 juil. 2012 à 16:26, "Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt at steptoe.com> a écrit :

> I am happy to join Wendy as apart of the small group as well.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Brian
> 
> Brian J. Winterfeldt  
> Partner 
> bwinterfeldt at steptoe.com
> Steptoe
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer
> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 6:34 AM
> To: Stéphane Van Gelder
> Cc: GNSO Council List
> Subject: Re: [council] Action items from Prague / GNSO Review
> 
> 
> On 07/01/2012 07:00 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> 
>> GNSO Review
>> We have discussed two possible alternatives: drafting a request to the SIC to delay the review and creating a small group to look at this issue. What do we want to do?
> 
> I volunteer to be part of a small group discussing the review.  I favor
> *advancing* rather than delaying the review, as well as helping the SIC to frame it to address the challenges and barriers to consensus-building that stem from our current siloed structure.
> 
> --Wendy
> 
> --
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
> 
> 
>