[Gac-gnso-cg] Reverse liaison

[David Cake]

On 13 Jan 2014, at 8:08 pm, Campillos Gonzalez, Gema Maria <GCAMPILLOS at minetur.es> wrote:

> 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.
>  

	The assumption is that being a GNSO councillor is sufficiently time consuming as to allow only very minimal time for liaison with the GAC. A liaison who attended only GAC sessions that did not clash with important council sessions would be of very limited use. And given how much time the GAC spends discussing new gTLDs, a great deal of their meetings are relevant to the GNSO - any discussion relevant to gTLDs is potentially relevant to the GNSO. 
	So the liaison would be in addition to the existing councillors, and would spend a lot of their time at ICANN meetings in the GAC, including some time normally spent on council business (or constituency or stakeholder group sessions, which councillors are normally expected to attend to ensure they are able to communicate the views of those they represent). 
	Regards

		David

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Gac-gnso-cg mailing list
> Gac-gnso-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac-gnso-cg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gac-gnso-cg/attachments/20140114/7abfd21f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gac-gnso-cg/attachments/20140114/7abfd21f/signature-0001.asc>