RE: [council] Proposed motion on Rec 6 CWG

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I thought it was eight calendar days. Given the time of our meeting on
the 8th, this came in with less than eight days.

In any event, SG members have started to travel and that will continue
throught the weekend with arrivals Thurs through Mon (hopefully those
already stranded in the UK get through sooner than later). There is no
way to have coherent SG discussions on this prior to Constituency day
which doesn't leave much time for actual discussion and any necessary
consensus building (which may have changed based on the Board's
response). So I sense another motion that will just get delayed.

Given that so many motions are coming in at or near the deadline, I
propose that we consider moving the deadline up to 14 calendar days and
would appreciate others thoughts on that.


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [council] Proposed motion on Rec 6 CWG
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, December 01, 2010 8:37 am
> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Technically, I think the deadline was met because the date on the message was 
> 30 November.  Please correct me if I am wrong on that.
>  
> It seems to me that the more important question is whether there is support 
> for the motion or if there are concerns about it that we can discuss in our 
> respective groups and on the Council list in the next week leading up to our 
> 8 December Council meeting.
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 8:56 AM
> To: Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] Proposed motion on Rec 6 CWG
> 
> 
>  
> 
> This motion is too late isn't it? It came to my inbox at 3:00 UTC 1Dec.
> And I am just now up and able to review it. Given upcoming travel, need
> to vet with SGs or Cs, we should be very strict about the deadline,
> IMHO.
> 
> Tim
> 
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: [council] Proposed motion on Rec 6 CWG
> > From: "Mary Wong" 
> > Date: Tue, November 30, 2010 9:02 pm
> > To: 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Hello again everyone
> >  
> > I'd like to propose a motion for the Council's consideration at the 8 
> > December meeting. This motion relates to the recommendations made recently 
> > by the cross-community working group (CWG) regarding implementation of the 
> > Council's Recommendation 6 (which formed the basis for the "morality and 
> > public order" section of the DAG.)
> >  
> > You'll recall that the Council supported GNSO participation in the CWG, in 
> > a resolution passed on 8 September. As you may also recall, the CWG's task 
> > included making recommendations that would render the MAPO section of the 
> > DAG acceptable to the broader community, yet still accomplishing the 
> > implementation of Recommendation 6. 
> >  
> > 
> > I understand that there is concern amongst some Council members that 
> > continuing a cross-community working group model will in some way diminish 
> > the GNSO's role in policy development and/or impinge on Consensus Policies. 
> > This concern is part of a wider discussion that to my mind is not 
> > implicated by the Rec 6 CWG process or recommendations, in relation to 
> > which the much more pressing concern is to ensure that the ICANN Board, 
> > staff and community do NOT interpret the Council's silence and inactivity, 
> > following the original September motion, as lack of GNSO community support 
> > for the CWG's recommendations. 
> >  
> > Thus, I propose a motion, as follows:
> >  
> > WHEREAS, on 8 September 2010 the GNSO Council endorsed GNSO participation 
> > in a  joint working group with other interested Supporting Organizations 
> > (SO�s) and Advisory Committee (AC�s) to provide guidance to 
> > the ICANN new gTLD Implementation Team and the ICANN Board in relation to 
> > the implementation of the Council's Recommendation 6 regarding strings that 
> > contravene generally-accepted legal norms relating to morality and public 
> > order that are recognized under international principles of law;
> >  
> > WHEREAS, the Recommendation 6 cross-community working group (CWG) 
> > was established in accordance with the Terms of Reference also approved by 
> > the GNSO Council on 8 September 2010;
> >  
> > AND WHEREAS, the CWG has since delivered a set of recommendations regarding 
> > implementation of the GNSO Council's Recommendation 6 for new gTLDs to the 
> > ICANN Board and community;
> >  
> > RESOLVED, the Council thanks the CWG and its participants, from the GNSO 
> > and other SOs and the ACs, for their hard work; and acknowledges that the 
> > CWG recommendations do not constitute Consensus Policy or GNSO policy 
> > development otherwise within the purview of the GNSO;
> >  
> > RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Council hereby endorses the CWG recommendations 
> > as representing. as far as possible, consensus among the various 
> > stakeholders in the ICANN community on effective mechanisms for the 
> > implementation of Recommendation 6.
> >  
> > Thanks and cheers
> > Mary
> >  
> >  
> > 
> > Mary W S Wong
> > Professor of Law
> > Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
> > Two White Street
> > Concord, NH 03301
> > USA
> > Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Phone: 1-603-513-5143
> > Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
> > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) 
> > at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law 
> > Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now 
> > known as the University of 
> > New Hampshire School of Law. Please 
> > note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the 
> > convention: firstname.lastname@xxxxxxxxxxx. For more information on the 
> > University 
> > of New Hampshire School of Law, please 
> > visit law.unh.edu
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>