[council] Comments on the appointment of a GNSO Council - "Reverse Liaison " to the GAC

[WUKnoben]

I fully agree to John’s comments.

As to the role of the liaison I expect she/he having to be more or less passive and reactive. I don’t expect the GAC allowing to actively participating in discussions. This may be different to liaisons at the GNSO (e.g. Alan as ALAC liaison) but should definitely discussed between Heather and yourself, Jonathan.

I agree to the one year term as the liaison needs to keep updated with the latest PDP developments.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich



From: Jonathan Robinson 
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 10:20 PM
To: john at crediblecontext.com ; council at gnso.icann.org 
Subject: RE: [council] Comments on the appointment of a GNSO Council - "Reverse Liaison " to the GAC

Thanks John,

 

That moves it along and as far as I can see is consistent with what I suggested.

 

One other point we need to consider is selection.  Right now, we have Zahid as a volunteer which is great.

There may be others depending on the criteria and, if so, will need to figure out how to decide.

 

In any event, even if we only have one volunteer / candidate who meets the criteria, we’ll probably need a method for the Council to ratify that individual.

 

Jonathan

 

From: john at crediblecontext.com [mailto:john at crediblecontext.com] 
Sent: 23 September 2013 17:27
To: jrobinson at afilias.info; council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: [council] Comments on the appointment of a GNSO Council - "Reverse Liaison " to the GAC

 

Jonathan,

 

I am glad we are trying to put a frame around this idea.  As you know, I suggested such an approach for our liaison to the ccNSO Council as their meetings overlap with ours making it hard for a sitting councilor to fully participate.  That same is true with the GAC and I support nominating someone with a just-ended seat on the Council.

 

I have used the structure of your inquiry email to offer my comments:

 

  What do we mean by Reverse Liaison? 

  ·         The by-laws may allow for a liaison between groups, as it does for the GAC with the GNSO Council, but practicalities may intervene.  That is the case with the GAC as no single member can speak for the full advisory committee.  As they have not filled the liaison seat, we are proposing a reverse liaison so that we can still benefit from a fuller knowledge of their actions and discussion as well as have a trusted representative who can participate in their discussions.  It should be someone who, as you say, is able to effectively and accurately represent the current status of all aspects of current GNSO policy work.

  What qualifications? 

  It is required that they be familiar with GNSO current policy work and the policy development process.  That's shy a GNSO Councilor just ending his or her term makes the most sense.

  What does the Council expect

  As it would be impossible to be in two places at the same time, there should be no requirement that this person attend GNSO Council meetings, but, as with ICANN staff that are called to participate when the Council agenda touches their area of coverage, it would be expected for the liaison to be available to brief the Council as needed.  Certainly, regular written reports to GNSO Council make sense. 

  What does the GAC expect? 

  This is a matter for you (Jonathan) to discuss with the head of the GAC.  I wonder if they would be OK with the particulars above. 

  Other practical issues? 

  ·         The reverse liaison would need to be funded to attend the three international meetings and any other intercessional held by the GAC (assuming it is on-board).  The term ought to be one year with a new councilor whose term is just ending filling the spot each time.

  My two cents, 

  Berard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20130925/3200ac54/attachment.html>