[council] FW: Notes for tomorrow's meetings

[Marika Konings]

On 06/04/13 17:43, "Mason Cole" <mcole at 5x5com.com> wrote:


>Meeting with Fadi:
>

>- His ongoing confidence in new gTLD execution
>- IDN variants
>- Specificity in roll-out timeline
>
>
>
>GAC
>- Understands/supports multistakeholder model.  Doesn't necessarily do
>well inside that model.  Need to be creative about how we engage them.
>- Would be useful to understand what GAC issues are.  Would be helpful to
>provide them with forward look on council activity so they're alerted in
>advance and can plan.
>- Get direct input from GAC on issues they're interested in.
>- Perhaps assign ICANN staff person as liaison between GAC-GNSO.
>- Maybe provide GAC with instruction on opportunities and windows for
>input.  Mistake to involve them in WGs.
>- Make GAC a resource.  WGs should try to identify issues that may be of
>interest to the GAC and give them a chance to contribute.
>- Realize that governments are meeting and talking to other governments.
>Their interest is showing capitals they are effective over ICANN.  Flaw
>in ICANN structure.  Going to have to hit them over the head with
>realities of interaction problems.
>- Issue of full council's relationship with GAC vs. individual members'
>various relationships.
>- Establish mutual GNSO-GAC liaisons; one from each house.
>
>Board and CEO
>- Have free-flow session without a giant agenda.  Themes vs. individual
>issues.
>- Role and function of GNSO council in multi-stakeholder model (e.g.,
>board approaches council for policy advice, timelines too short... =
>ignoring process)
>- Intentional bypassing of bottom-up process
>- Policy input vs. policy advice
>- Emerging trends we want to reflect to the board
>- Council restructure called for the board to accept broader public
>comment from those impacted by policy; most input the board receives is
>from finite population of the GNSO.
>- Public interest at ICANN
>- Engagement and outreach, new constituencies
>
>
>
>Sent from my iPad