[gnso-gac-closed-generics] Next Steps

[Kathy Kleiman]

Hi Melissa, Mary and All,

One discussion point on this topic involves the neutrality of the Board 
member appointed as our liaison. Some Board members are at one end of 
our proposed parameters (supporting few if any closed generic gTLDs) and 
others are at the other end (supporting few if any restrictions).

I've heard a number of voices- somewhere on the lists I follow- calling 
for a neutral Board liaison. I support this idea!

Happy Thanksgiving to all who are celebrating!

Best, Kathy

On 11/22/2022 6:45 PM, Mary Wong wrote:
>
> SENT ON BEHALF OF MELISSA ALLGOOD
>
> Dear all,
>
> I am pleased to inform you that, as noted in her message below, 
> Melissa has submitted the request on this group’s behalf for a Board 
> liaison. As Melissa is away this week I am sending this update on her 
> behalf. My understanding is that she will follow up on the request 
> upon her return to the office.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mary
>
> *From: *gnso-gac-closed-generics 
> <gnso-gac-closed-generics-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Melissa 
> Peters Allgood <melissa.allgood at icann.org>
> *Date: *Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 12:03 PM
> *To: *"gnso-gac-closed-generics at icann.org" 
> <gnso-gac-closed-generics at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-gac-closed-generics] Next Steps
>
> The link to the asynchronous work is found in the email, not via 
> attachment. My apologies for any confusion.
>
> Melissa
>
> *From: *gnso-gac-closed-generics 
> <gnso-gac-closed-generics-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Melissa 
> Peters Allgood <melissa.allgood at icann.org>
> *Date: *Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 11:24 AM
> *To: *"gnso-gac-closed-generics at icann.org" 
> <gnso-gac-closed-generics at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[gnso-gac-closed-generics] Next Steps
>
> Hello all,
>
> Thank you for taking part in the initial two discussions on 
> Participant Commitments. Your engagement is much appreciated.
>
> As we discussed at ICANN75, it’s essential that this group has a 
> shared understanding of the problem you are attempting to solve and 
> what you hope to accomplish before we can tackle the substantive 
> issues. This is particularly important when we are going to be 
> discussing issues where there are divergent views across the community 
> and on which the community has previously tried but has not reached 
> consensus. My goal remains creating opportunity for all of you to 
> engage with one another as you work toward common understanding. In 
> order to find a degree of success within this challenge, it is 
> incumbent upon all to engage with one another in a transparent and 
> solution-focused manner. As we’ve discussed, this is not a PDP so 
> having a clear agreement on what participation means in this dialogue 
> is important.
>
> Given where we are on the Participant Commitments, I would like to 
> make a proposal for how we can maximize our limited time. I suggest we 
> begin substantive asynchronous work in parallel to completing the 
> remaining foundational work that has been the focus of our recent calls.
>
> Attached to this email is Asynchronous Work #1. This is a 
> brainstorming exercise intended to identify broad areas of alignment. 
> I ask that you each respond to the questions asked by editing directly 
> into the document.
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RoioR15xJ_YsUPZIxlzc2YUuJDAVCWA-iXufJIcgku8/edit 
> [docs.google.com] 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1RoioR15xJ_YsUPZIxlzc2YUuJDAVCWA-iXufJIcgku8/edit__;!!PtGJab4!-oC0w7bSFkn4fLYy5Tsb2vdAhy8_oU6kqCxTV9_p4AZqstPJi1-LnBHIT4EuK70Y2PzIJjKGo1uloLOA99SUV1i5aJRdgQhjXgx_jg$>
>
> Additionally, having not received any further inputs regarding the 
> request for a Board Liaison, I will initiate that request today.
>
> Finally, please be on the lookout for a second email from me which 
> will be focused on the remaining points under discussion for our 
> foundational work. In this regard, I ask that everyone bears in mind 
> that the Participant Commitments are intended to reflect the GAC and 
> GNSO understanding of the basis of this dialogue at a high level. As 
> such, I encourage you to focus on any fundamental points of 
> disagreement in principle or divergence from that common understanding 
> rather than on wordsmithing the text.
>
> Please feel free to further engage on the mailing list or by 
> responding to this email.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Melissa
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-gac-closed-generics mailing list
> gnso-gac-closed-generics at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-gac-closed-generics
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-- 
Kathy Kleiman
President, Domain Name Rights Coalition
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-gac-closed-generics/attachments/20221123/6e141a46/attachment.html>