[council] Beijing / Meetings with GAC & ccNSO

[Jonathan Robinson]

Thanks Thomas and others for contributions offers of further assistance on
this.

 

I agree the burden should be both ways and so we should make that point.

That said, we still need to come up with and potentially add substance to
our own agenda points.

 

You have started or developed this below so that's helpful.

 

 

Jonathan

 

From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de] 
Sent: 11 February 2013 14:01
To: Jonathan Robinson
Cc: council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] Beijing / Meetings with GAC & ccNSO

 

Jonathan, all,

while I agree with most of what has been said by fellow Councillors in
response to your request, I have a general question: 

 

Is it just us needing to come up with what John calls (rightfully) a
compelling agenda or isn't the "burden" on both parties?

 

 

ad 1 and 2:

As far as the ccNSO is concerned, we already had sessions in the past
talking about the impact of new gTLDs, but they were quite superficial.
While I could not be in favor of repeating statements made before, I guess
that a well prepared discussion would be meaningful. Whois (which is closely
linked to John's point on the EU data protection laws) might also be a topic
of mutual interest. 

 

In my view such sessions would need to be carefully prepared - imho best
done by reps from both parties taking care of that. I would volunteer to be
part of that. In the absence of a good preparation, we might better not put
these points on the agenda.

 

ad 3 and 4:

I definitely support an initiative to meet with the GAC.

 

As chair of the IOC-RCRC-IGO-INGO PDP WG I would very much welcome the
opportunity to discuss this very topic. You will recall that this PDP was
tagged a case study by both the Board and the GAC and as a consequence we
should consider being an active part in making this case study successful.
Our leadership (you or one of the vice chairs :-)) might wish to reach out
to both the GAC and the Board to find out what their plan was with the case
study? Was the idea to just observe and evaluate jointly or separately after
it is over? Was the idea to be more active by engaging in the process at
some stage or to have interim assessments? If so, on the basis of what
information? I can tell you that the level of complexity of this project is
challenging and thus there is a lot that could be presented and discussed. 

 

I would be more than happy to contribute to this, but I would need to
understand better what the expectations are. Maybe we could even invite the
Board (or reps) to such discussion. If such session was well prepared, I
think it would be a good initiative to help the various groups better
understand the approaches, ongoing work, limitations and chances of what the
GNSO is going.  

 

Thanks,

Thomas

 

 

 

Am 05.02.2013 um 23:04 schrieb Jonathan Robinson
<jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>:





All,

 

Many of you will recall that, pre-Toronto, we held regular meetings with
both the GAC & the ccNSO at the ICANN meetings.

These meetings were scheduled in advance and then we typically discussed or
developed topics during the weekend sessions.

 

In my opinion the meetings were not always that successful for a variety of
reasons, one of which could be that we were not necessarily adequately
prepared or engaged, or vice cersa

In anticipation of meeting one or both of the GAC & the ccNSO in Beijing, we
have reached out to them relatively early.


The initial question from the ccNSO has been, tell us what you'd like to
discuss / meet about and then we can agree whether or not to meet.

I am certain that the GAC will also seek to discuss and agree some topics at
least if we are to meet with them.

 

Personally, I was disappointed not to meet with the GAC in Toronto and feel
that it is important to us to do so.

 

Therefore the following questions arise:

 

1.       Do you support an initiative to meet with the ccNSO in Beijing?

2.       If yes, please try to assist with any suggested topics or issues to
discuss and potentially collaborate on?

 

3.       Do you support an initiative to meet with the GAC in Beijing?

4.       If yes, please try to assist with any suggested topics or issues to
discuss and potentially collaborate on?

 

I look forward to hearing back from you on this as will Mason in terms of
his planning for the Beijing meeting.

 

Thank-you.

 

 

Jonathan

 

 

 

Jonathan Robinson

Chair

ICANN GNSO Council

 

jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com

skype: jonathan.m.r

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20130211/20bd8a99/attachment.html>