RE: [soac-mapo] GAC Invititation
- To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, <soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] GAC Invititation
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 12:43:50 -0400
The SOAC group did not discuss this.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 12:42 PM
> To: soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Gomes, Chuck
> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] GAC Invititation
> We should start a third list on the same topic?
> On the Cross Community thing, all of the real cross community list,
> 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.
> 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
> 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
> > As was mentioned at the outset, staff tossed up this list following
> Council discussion in Brussels in which it was suggested that GNSO
> 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
> 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
> fresh? Presumably Chuck, CLO, and Heather could figure out a
> > Bill