Re: [soac-mapo] GAC Invititation

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

We should start a third list on the same topic?

On the Cross Community thing, all of the real cross community list, i.e that 
aren't in some group's turf as it were, have been created in non ICANN space. 

The name of this list at least indicates lack of turf.

i am wondering did the SOAC chairs group discuss this effort at all?  Seems 
like that is the place to take the issue and figure out a way to have something 
truly cross community develop.


a.



On 23 Jul 2010, at 02:21, William Drake wrote:

> Hi
> 
> On Jul 22, 2010, at 11:29 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> 
>> 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?
> 
> As was mentioned at the outset, staff tossed up this list following a Council 
> discussion in Brussels in which it was suggested that GNSO have some dialogue 
> and recalibrate in light of the GAC position and in anticipation of the 
> cross-community platform some GAC members said GAC would favor.  Since it 
> wasn't the intention that this list would be that platform and we didn't 
> establish a charter etc before people dove deep into debate, it's not 
> surprising nobody thought to bounce it off ALAC first or invite GAC.  In the 
> meanwhile, nothing has been done to advance the cross-community concept.  
> Rather than asking GNSO people to join an ALAC/GAC conversation others didn't 
> know about, or asking ALAC and GAC people to join a GNSO list others didn't 
> know about and then dig through the archive to get "caught up" (which one 
> imagines some government types used to different models of interaction would 
> find procedurally odd), why not simply take the initiative to launch a new, 
> "neutral" cross-community space open to all?  Unburden this of any process 
> misperceptions, remove it from any one SO/AC's 'turf' and start fresh?  
> Presumably Chuck, CLO, and Heather could figure out a mechanism...
> 
> Bill
>