RE: [council] Re: [offlist] Status/report from ACSO meeting
Why couldn't we proceed without the GAC? It's not that we don't want
their participation, we do. But this is a joint effort and no one AC or
SO should try to control what's discussed, or be allowed to.
I agree that there is no point in spending time discussing the demand
issue. I don't particularly like what Stephane is suggesting either
(with all due respect). It seems a bit self-serving and not of much
interest to the broader community, especially with all the other
important issues that could be discussed.
Considering what's been suggested so far, I would prefer Kristina's
suggestion - malicious conduct. But my suggestion is that the topic be
Accountability. The Board has posted suggestions that I think fall
short, and based on comments submitted regarding IIC and the NOI on the
JPA I believe many if not most of the community believe they fall short
regardless of where they are on whether or not the JPA should be
extended.
Tim
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] Re: [offlist] Status/report from ACSO meeting
From: StÃphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, September 02, 2009 4:49 am
To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>, Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Avri, Chuck,
Agree with the both of you that this is not a particular useful topic to
have at the ACSO meeting as it will just be a slugging match between the
gTLD pros and cons.
I don't see who would be able to give factual information on consumer
demand
for new gTLDs, so it would just be everyone voicing their opinion.
That's
exactly what has been happening for the last couple of years anyway so
in
what way would such a session be productive?
Plus I have to say I find the GAC's attitude surprising ("either run our
topic or we're not coming!"). I felt at the previous two ACSO sessions
they
were very supportive of the whole concept and very open about it. Any
idea
why the apparent change of attitude?
As for possible topic choices, this session being an opportunity for a
get-together between the various committees and organisations that make
up
ICANN and that ensure that ICANN can actually function, I would think it
would be more useful to have folks discuss ways to improve the ICANN,
ACs
and SOs processes.
As these are brainstorming sessions, I think we can be quite daring in
our
choices of topics.
How about something like: "with volunteer burnout becoming a pressing
problem, should ICANN look into remuneration possibilities for AC and SO
council and excom members?"
I'm sure most people would be against this (I certainly am), but it
would
give people an opportunity to explain why and what their take on being
involved in the ICANN process is.
Just an idea...
StÃphane
Le 02/09/09 00:21,  Avri Doria  <avri@xxxxxxx> a Ãcrit :
>
> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>