RE: [council] Re: [offlist] Status/report from ACSO meeting
While we're being candid and with the caveat that I am not addressing
the merits of the GAC request . . ..
I have a strong preference that the session - if it happens on Monday or
at all - focus on a substantive policy/Policy issue and, ideally, one in
which the ACSO participant organizations have at least some common
interest. Do I think that it should be malicious conduct/consumer
protection? Absolutely. Does it have to be? No.
We're all traveling too far and the F2F time is too valuable to spend it
on topics that can be handled effectively remotely. In my view, the
topics from the Sydney ACSO meeting were just that.
My two cents.
K
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 8:10 PM
To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO
Subject: RE: [council] Re: [offlist] Status/report from ACSO meeting
OK. Here's Adrian's perspective.
I am sick and tired of the GAC throwing stones from a distance and not
getting their hands dirty.
Why don't they prove that their isn't demand and that there will be no
benefit to consumers?
I met with the Australian GAC representative yesterday and I am
concerned that the GAC is simply three voices in a room that push an
agenda shared by those three voices.
I propose the following;
- ignore their request to participate based on the fact that we have
simply dealt with these issues long ago and that they are somewhat
fruitless discussions at this 11th hour
- ask them to define the consensus and how it is generated in the GAC,
in particular with respect to this particular point of view on new
gTLD's
We all have far too much to do.
As far as prioritizing work and discussions within the GNSO Council I
believe this would fit nicely towards the bottom (coincidentally where
my football team finished this season!).
Thanks.
Adrian Kinderis
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, 2 September 2009 8:22 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: [council] Re: [offlist] Status/report from ACSO meeting
Hi,
while not the same words, pretty much what i said.
but i promised to report it in a neutral manner.
GAC is being rather insistent.
they say it covers all the topics they think are interesting.
the pretty much refused (not in so few words) to hold the meeting on a
Monday unless they felt the topic was one of interest to them.
i figured the GNSO was fine with not having the meeting at all and said
so.
but also said that the GNSO was not proposing that the meeting be
cancelled.
a.
On 2 Sep 2009, at 00:14, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> Should be an interesting and diverse debate but it will come down to
> one side's opinions versus the other's. Isn't that basically where we
> started in the New gTLD PDP process?
>
> Chuck
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 6:04 PM
>> To: Council GNSO
>> Subject: [council] Status/report from ACSO meeting
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Just got out of a ACSO meeting where the topic of the meeting for
>> Seoul was discussed.
>>
>> The GAC has suggested that the Seoul ACSO meeting focus on a topic
>> from their letter to the Board Chair of 18 Aug 09.
>> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-dengate-thrush
>> -18aug09-en.pdf
>>
>> Specially based on the following sentence:
>>
>> "The GAC remains concerned that the threshold question has not been
>> answered whether the introduction of new gTLDs provides potential
>> benefits to consumers that will not be outweighed by the potential
>> harms."
>>
>> So the topic would be:
>>
>> Whether the introduction of new gTLDs provides potential benefits to
>> consumers that will not be outweighed by the potential harms
>>
>> We have all been asked to get feedback from the various SOs and ACs
>> before next week.
>>
>> I have also reported this under the status section of the Agenda for
>> this week.
>>
>> a.
>>
>>
>