[PC-NCSG] Fwd: GNSO DT new ICANN meeting strategy

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi,

Thanks for bringing this up, Sam. I think you make a good point.

I don?t see any harm in having constituency representatives forwarded. One thought that comes to mind is that NCUC and NPOC have their own meetings on CD, and might want to be represented in this discussion. This does not mean that NCSG would also not want to be represented on the SG level. NCSG has its own meetings on CD as well as the PC meeting during the traditional weekend prior to the meeting?s beginning.

Other thoughts would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 4, 2015, at 2:51 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:

> All,
> 
> I replied before I saw Glen's message with the "...invite to contribute one member". 
> For clarity, is that one from NCSG, or one from each of NCUC and NPOC...the wording is unclear (maybe only to me) "each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is invited to contribute one member"
> 
> In any event here could be a background NCSG dialogue on an NCSG/NCUC/NPOC position on the       idea.
> 
> Sam L. 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150304/e54a8ef3/attachment.html>