Re: [soac-mapo] GAC Invititation
- To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] GAC Invititation
- From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 17:29:32 -0400
On 22 July 2010 15:46, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I have heard indirectly that a GAC member does not think that GAC members
> are invited to participate in this discussion group.
The GAC/ALAC sub-group on MAPO -- a focused followup on the broader GAC/ALAC
meeting -- was deliberately small, only four people from each AC, enough to
sit around a table and make eye contact. That was presumed (probably
correctly) to be able to move faster and more flexibly than a GAC/ALAC
committee of the whole, so to speak.
It was working well.
Then comes this list, the idea of which was certainly never bounced off ALAC
before creation (don't know if anyone asked the GAC). Before this list even
saw its first posting there were 24 members from GNSO alone; hardly a level
playing field for a couple of GAC or ALAC members to wander into. Rather
than re-invent something from scratch and hope *they'll* show up, why not
offer to send some people into the ALAC/GAC conversation (really, a
yet-informal working group)* that already exists*?
Right now -- to someone who's been engaged with the GAC on MAPO since
Nairobi -- this mailing lists seems like more than a little
Before re-inventing the wheel, did anyone here even ask the ACs to see if
anything was already in place?
The other good thing about keeping such a group small is that it may be
easier to bring together F2F should the rumoured "TLD summit" become
Of course, GNSO has the option of forcing clarity within its grasp. Repeal
Rec 6, make the GAC unambiguously say what it wants, and end the