[NCSG-PC] Meeting RrSG and RySG in Copenhagen - topics?

[matthew shears]

I agree - we should have the meeting (with an agenda).


On 12/01/2017 23:36, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi Tapani,
>
> it is definitely a good thing. we had meetings with registrars before 
> but not with registries. so I support meeting both of them.
> any idea if they want the meeting as informal or formal? and so we 
> need to make a decision about the meeting request soon.
> since the GNSO shared its initial block schedule for Copenhagen, we 
> can start planning the internal meetings we want and also those with 
> other SG/C, maybe ACs, then moving to discuss about the important 
> topics we want.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-01-13 5:00 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info 
> <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>>:
>
>     Hi Amr,
>
>     To clarify, RrSG asked if we'd like to meet with them, without
>     more about the substance than this:
>
>     "If the answer is yes, then we can figure out the content details and
>     suitable scheduling."
>
>     I thought we would want one. And that we'd want one with RySG as well.
>
>     How long the meetings would be is an open question, it would depend
>     on the topics as well as what we can squeeze into the schedule.
>
>     Tapani
>
>     On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 08:01:46PM +0200, Amr Elsadr
>     (aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>) wrote:
>
>     > Hi,
>     >
>     > Well…, that’s not a bad thing at all. Have they indicated at all
>     why they’d like to meet with us? There are probably a number of
>     topics in which we are to some degree aligned with them on. Trying
>     to strategize a way forward with them on some of these may prove
>     useful. The ones that come to mind are RDS (especially on privacy
>     and IRD) and anything related to GNSO reviews. Depending on how
>     things go in Reykjavik, we may have something to discuss with them
>     on these in Copenhagen.
>     >
>     > Not sure how our members participating in new gTLDs SP and RPMs
>     feel about how aligned we are with them on those topics, or if we
>     need to hold discussions with them.
>     >
>     > In general, I believe regular coordination between the NCSG and
>     contracted parties (particularly registrars) could be worthwhile.
>     >
>     > Thanks.
>     >
>     > Amr
>     >
>     > > On Jan 12, 2017, at 7:46 PM, Tapani Tarvainen
>     <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO <mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>>
>     wrote:
>     > >
>     > > Dear all,
>     > >
>     > > I'm planning meetings with RySG and RrSG (who actually asked
>     for it)
>     > > in Copenhagen.
>     > >
>     > > It would be useful to have at least some topics for discussion in
>     > > advance. Suggestions would be appreciated.
>     > >
>     > > --
>     > > Tapani Tarvainen
>     _______________________________________________
>     NCSG-PC mailing list
>     NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>     https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-- 
------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170112/2956f7f1/attachment.htm>