[council] ccNSO Council meeting report

Jonathan Robinson jrobinson at afilias.info
Thu Dec 12 10:39:38 UTC 2013

Thanks John,


Two questions for you and the Council:


1.       Could such a position (liaison) be served by a single individual to both GAC & ccNSO?

2.       The GNSO groups seem to be generally organising to place representatives / liaisons into the CCWG and other internet Governance initiatives.
The GNSO Council has agreed (in BA) to James Bladel and Jennifer Wolfe being our “liaisons” to the Multi-stakeholder Innovation Panel initiative.
Are there any other such initiatives that the Council should be actively monitoring and contributing to via a “liaison” of sorts?







From: John Berard [mailto:johnberard at aol.com] 
Sent: 11 December 2013 17:03
To: Maria Farrell
Cc: David Cake; John Berard; Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] ccNSO Council meeting report


The idea to fund a ccNSO liaison from among the GNSO Councillors leaving their seat has been floated but little discussed.  Perhaps we ought to put it on the weekend agenda for Singapore



Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 11, 2013, at 8:33 AM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com> wrote:

Hi John,

Many thanks for this summary and indeed for getting up at 0400 to be able to provide it to us.

I agree with your suggestion, and David's support, for a funded liaison person who can attend ccNSO and- David's suggestion - GAC meetings that run at the same time as ours. It could be a useful first step to figuring out how to implement the ATRT2 recommendation that we somehow get the GAC more active in GNSO PDPs. 

I wonder how we would go about discussing that in more detail in the GNSO and, if appropriate, getting the idea into the works?


That said, I personally think you're doing a terrific job keeping us informed about cc-world and it is really useful to get these updates from you, with your day to day knowledge of GNSO Council issues, e.g. the cross community working group. You are in danger of making yourself indispensable!



On 11 December 2013 02:05, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:

On 11 Dec 2013, at 7:38 am, john at crediblecontext.com wrote:
> 4.  As the GNSO Council liaison to the ccNSO Council, I have already suggested, because we meet at the same times during the three international meetings, that someone just off the Council be asked to fill the role.  This brings up a question of funding.  I think the position should be funded and a specific set of responsibilities attached.  I am just making this up as I go along.

        Regardless, it seems a valuable suggestion. We have the same issue with the GAC - the major SOs and ACs are all more or less so busy that they consume almost all the time available at an ICANN meeting, making it pretty much impossible to effectively monitor one if you are an active participant in another. Liaisons are seeming a more valuable idea with each meeting, and it seem a practical necessity that they are not full serving members of the origin group in order to have the time to fully monitor the group they are outreaching to. And of course funding is important, as the ability to attend physical meetings is essential for the role.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20131212/58019e67/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list