No offence taken Tim. I was just suggesting an idea. I actually think you
idea and Kristina's are very good.
Stéphane
Le 02/09/09 15:34, « Tim Ruiz » <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
>
> 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: Stéphane 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...
>
> Stéphane
>
>
> Le 02/09/09 00:21, « Avri Doria » <avri@xxxxxxx> a écrit :
>
>>
>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature