GAC-Board meeting in Brussels now

[Avri Doria]

hi,

i know you guys did not send me, but i will work up an impressions report in the next day or so for blog and for those who did send me.

It went until this morning, and to be honest, I am still working on understanding.

quick impressions:

board asserted itself
gac asserted itself.
for the most part it was good natured.
though GAC did start by threatening and every once in a while, when they felt it slipping, threatened again.
and the Board pretty much contained their frustration.  most of the time.

they, as groups, obviously don't have the hang of multistakeholder discussion yet, but were working on it, and some of them do have experience.

but  i think GAC will accept even losing some of their points if they really feel that due diligence has been done and there was a real consideration of their points.  not all of them of course. there will be be spoiled sports or both siders.

and some of the points are more qualifications and areas where they do not understand how the mechanisms are supposed to work.  or maybe they don't believe the mechanism don't work.

i am hoping the Board will have a coherent response to the scorecard in the next few days.  i am not going to cull it from the transcript but this morning and yesterday afternoon was the scorecard response.


a.


On 2 Mar 2011, at 20:40, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> Joly:
> I didn't ask for a transcript. 
> I asked that our representative in Brussels - the one I believe we agreed to support to get there - actually provide us with a report. Bill?
> --MM
> ________________________________________
> From: joly.nyc at gmail.com [joly.nyc at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Joly MacFie [joly at punkcast.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 7:52 PM
> To: Milton L Mueller
> Cc: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
> Subject: Re: GAC-Board meeting in Brussels now
> 
> scribe notes:
> 
> http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-1.txt
> http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-2.txt
> http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-3.txt
> http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-4.txt
> http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-5.txt
> http://domainincite.com/docs/ICANN-GAC-consultation-Feb-28-2011-scribe-notes-6.txt
> 
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>> Would appreciate a report on your impressions. I had time to listen in for
>> about 45 minutes this morning, mostly about geographic names. My impression
>> was that the whole discussion was very inconclusive and consisted of
>> relatively clueless GAC members, e.g. from Germany and UK, reiterating
>> debates over geographic names that we have been having for years, not
>> contributing anything new in terms of information or policy and really not
>> pressing ICANN to make specific changes. GAC members themselves did not seem
>> of one mind about the issue, although sharing certain “concerns.” But that
>> was a very small sample of the total interaction, so want to know what you
>> saw/heard/thought.
>> 
>> 
> 
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
> http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
> VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>