[gnso-policyimpl-wg] RE: For your review - letters to SO/ACs and ICANN Board of Directors

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Brian.  You are correct that there was a GAC liaison to the GNSO Council 
in the past.  It was not very successful and the GAC ended it.  That doesn't 
mean it couldn't work in the future if it was more carefully designed but this 
may not be the best time to suggest that because we want them to focus on 
providing input to the policy & implementation topic.  Also, it is important to 
point out that: 1) Jonathan Robinson in his role as Council Chair is in dialog 
with the GAC about the possibility of initiating what has been termed a Reverse 
Liaison form the Council to the GAC; 2) The GAC has reached out to J. Scott & I 
suggesting some ways that the GAC could contribute to our WG and we will be 
providing more information on this to the WG hopefully this coming week.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian Beckham
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 10:00 AM
To: Marika Konings; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] RE: For your review - letters to SO/ACs and ICANN 
Board of Directors

Thanks for this Marika, and J Scott/Chuck,

These are excellent letters, and I have just one thought: would it be worth 
considering, in addition to personal and informal invitations, also proposing a 
Board liaison to the Working Group?

Though I am not aware of any precedent for this at the Working Group level 
(those with more institutional knowledge may correct me though), it may be 
something for this group to consider given the importance of this issue to 
ICANN's future and future legitimacy, the role of the Board vis-à-vis the GNSO 
(i.e., the GNSO is "responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN 
Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains"), and the 
precedent for non-voting liaisons to the Board (e.g., for ACs).

On a practical level, if any Board members took up the call in this particular 
letter, there may be something of a de facto reporting/liaison role; it may 
however be useful to see this structured somewhat.

I believe this role has been used by the GAC in the past, but reluctance 
emerged over time in order to avoid facilitating any misperception that a 
liaison was anything more than that (i.e., to avoid the perception that they 
spoke for the broader group).

If the role and limitations were sufficiently scoped here, any such concerns 
may be avoidable.

Regards,

Brian

Brian Beckham
Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd

E: brian.beckham@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:brian.beckham@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
D: +44 20 7421 8291
M: +44 (0) 77 8706 0804
M: +41 (0) 76 291 7839

From: 
owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: 10 September 2013 16:13
To: gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] For your review - letters to SO/ACs and ICANN 
Board of Directors

Dear All,

Please find attached for your review and feedback the following letters:

  1.  SO / AC Outreach Letter
  2.  Invitation to the ICANN Board of Directors (to be sent by GNSO Council)
The Chairs are considering whether a tailored version of the outreach letter 
should be sent to the GAC. If so, a modified version will be shared for your 
feedback shortly.

Please share any comments you may have by Friday 13 September at the latest.

Best regards,

Marika