[council] FW: GNSO Meeting with the Board : Topics

[Paul McGrady]

Personal View:

I agree with Donna.  We want to avoid the many unnecessary surprises and lengthy delays caused by the surprises that we experienced in Round 1 by GAC advice arriving well after implementation began.  ICANN's herky jerky implementation of Round 1 made it a laughingstock in the business community and it needs to rebuild its image as a trusted business partner.  Repeating the phenomenon of surprise GAC advice after applications have been filed will undo much of the good work of the last several years and I think the Board should aggressively manage that risk by bringing the GAC to the table early and keeping them at the table throughout the SubPro PDP.

Best,
Paul



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Austin, Donna
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 9:30 AM
To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>; 'GNSO Council List' <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: RE: [council] FW: GNSO Meeting with the Board : Topics 


Thanks Bruce

It was the subsequent procedures on new gTLDs PDP that I had in mind where I believe it would be beneficial to have structured discussions to either respond to, or perhaps even avoid, the situation where GAC advice is at odds with the PDP recommendations. The PDP WG is making progress on a number of topics and it may be possible to have trilateral sessions before finalization of the PDP recommendations and GAC advice, or vice versa. If we don't have the opportunity for such discussion, I fear there will be unnecessary and potentially lengthy delays.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 2:02 AM
To: 'GNSO Council List' <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: RE: [council] FW: GNSO Meeting with the Board : Topics 


Hello Donna.


>>  On the second point, I really think we would benefit from organized and sometimes moderated trilateral discussions, rather than the Board and GAC/ the Council and the Board/ and the GAC and the Council having separate discussions on the same subject. The continuous back and forth on the IGO acronym and Red Cross issues are a case in point. Perhaps this could have been circumvented if there had been an opportunity for open communication across the three groups. 

I completely agree the current – GAC-Board, GNSO-Board, GNSO-GAC combination of separate meetings sometimes spread over multiple ICANN meetings (ie Board might discuss a topic with GNSO in one public meeting, and discuss the same topic with GAC at a different public meeting)  is dysfunctional.    I would much prefer a structured GAC-GNSO-Board meeting on topics related to gTLDs, where the GAC has provided advice.


Regards,
Bruce Tonkin