RE: [soac-mapo] GAC Invititation
- To: "William Drake" <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] GAC Invititation
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:16:09 -0400
My thinking of the list Glen set up was that it would be a combined
SO/AC list but I confess to not discussing that with Heather or Cheryl.
I will do that.
From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 2:22 AM
To: Evan Leibovitch
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] GAC Invititation
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...