[Gac-gnso-cg] Reverse liaison

[Jonathan Robinson]

Thanks,

 

Let me see if I can help here.  

 

The idea was / is for the GNSO to provide a knowledgeable (someone well
familiar with the Council and current policy development work and processes)
person/s.

 

The thinking then went that such a person or persons would likely have
recently spent one or more terms on the GNSO Council.  

 

In terms of funding, ICANN funds the (ICANN meeting related) travel and
hotel of all GNSO Councillors.  A recently retired councillor would no
longer be in receipt of such funding.

 

Therefore, the proposal was to motivate for ICANN to fund the travel and
hotel of such a (volunteer) person such that they could readily fill the
role of reverse liason.

The proposal was not (to date) to remunerate the role in any way.

 

I trust that helps clarify thinking to date.

 

 

Jonathan

 

From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org]
On Behalf Of Ana Neves
Sent: 13 January 2014 12:28
To: Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria; Manal Ismail; Marika Konings;
GAC-GNSO-CG at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Reverse liaison

 

Dear Gema,

 

I’m not certainly the right person to reply to your question but I can only
react on the basis on the email I sent on this question. 

 

As far as I understand we may be talking about someone that knows quite well
GNSO and that could be a Councilor that would have step down recently from
GNSO Council. As far as I know these persons are funded by ICANN, but maybe
I’m totally wrong, as I am not familiar with those procedures. So, the point
would be not to lose the quality of the liaison even if I think that maybe
the funding will not be the main point here but the role of such liaison
person. On the other side, as almost all the GAC sessions are open he/she
can attend GAC meetings all the time but again the point here is to improve
the work relationship between GAC and GNSO and that implies a different work
approach.

 

Wishing you all a great week,

 

Ana 

 

From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org]
On Behalf Of Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria
Sent: segunda-feira, 13 de Janeiro de 2014 12:09
To: Manal Ismail; Marika Konings; GAC-GNSO-CG at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Reverse liaison

 

Dear all, 

 

Could somebody explain me more in depth why should the GNSO liaison to the
GAC needs to be funded? GNSO people would attend ICANN meetings in any case.
Why does this task need to be paid? The liaison doesn´t need to be present
at all GAC sessions, just those which are interesting for the GNSO. Thus, he
or she can also attend part of the GNSO meetings. 

 

Thank you for your further information,

 

Gema

 

De: gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org] En
nombre de Manal Ismail
Enviado el: sábado, 11 de enero de 2014 19:11
Para: Marika Konings; GAC-GNSO-CG at icann.org
Asunto: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Reverse liaison

 

Many thanks Marika and Olof for a very useful and timely document .. Hope it
encourages members to volunteer to lead the work of this track .. 

I have discussed with Jonathan and we both feel it would be a good idea to
pursue a budget request, specially that it will not oblige us to go down
that route but merely provide us with the means to do so if we choose .. 

  

Please let us know what you think .. 

  

Kind Regards 

--Manal 

  

  

From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org]
On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 3:49 PM
To: GAC-GNSO-CG at icann.org
Subject: [Gac-gnso-cg] Reverse liaison 

  

Dear All, 

  

Following Suzanne's suggestion that staff could possibly put some ideas
together in relation to the concept of a reverse liaison, Olof and I had a
little brainstorm and came up with the attached which as a first step tries
to identify what the respective objectives and expectations are. Fleshing
out that part of the conversation further may assist in determining whether
or not a 'reverse liaison' would be the best mechanism to achieve the
expectations. We also tried to identify a number of questions that would
need to be addressed should it be determined that a liaison is the way to
go, as well as some possible alternatives that could be considered should it
be decided that a liaison is not the most effective mechanism to achieve
these objectives. 

  

As the issue of funding of a possible liaison has come up on various
occasions, Olof and I have also discussed whether it would be an idea to
submit a special budget request on behalf of the GNSO and GAC that would
foresee for funding for a liaison to attend the ICANN meetings in FY15. This
could be presented as a pilot project which would allow the GNSO-GAC to
experiment with this position and consider at the end of FY15 whether this
should be continued as a pilot, transformed into a fixed funded slot or
discarded. Obviously, we are still in the early phases of determining
whether a liaison is the way to go and the nature of that role, but
unfortunately, the deadline for special budget requests is 7 March. If you
all think this would be a helpful approach, Olof and I could go ahead and
complete the required forms for your review, noting that at any point the
GNSO-GAC could decide to withdraw the request should a different approach be
pursued.  

  

As noted by Mikey, the group is still looking for topic leads to address
this issue, so hopefully this may encourage some of you to come forward.  

  

We look forward to receiving your feedback. 

  

Olof & Marika 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gac-gnso-cg/attachments/20140113/482fae7a/attachment-0001.html>