[council] Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] GNSO CCWG DT - Final Draft Principles For GNSO Council
- To: <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [council] Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] GNSO CCWG DT - Final Draft Principles For GNSO Council
- From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 15:58:13 +0100
- Cc: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <003501cccae4$25de6d70$719b4850$@firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <003501cccae4$25de6d70$719b4850$@email@example.com>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thanks Jonathan. Please convey my thanks to the group for the energy and time
it has devoted to this work.
I would like to ask how the group envisions the Council using its output? You
write that it is the group's expectations that this output will now be
considered prior to the GNSO participating in any further CWGs. Do you think
these should be added to the GNSO's R&Ps, or should they just be used as a
standalone reference document whenever the question of participation in a CWG
In the document itself:
On 2aii, we've seen several cases recently where the sponsoring bodies (be they
SOs or ACs) don't exactly see eye to eye on the charter. This says that there
should be consensus. What if there isn't? Is the idea to say that in such
cases, the GNSO would not participate until such a time as there is?
On bii, when should SOs and ACs do this? I don't understand what is being said
here? Do you expect SOs and ACs to solicit the advice of other bodies during
the execution of the CWG's work? If so, I find this strange as it seems to go
against the accepted norm nowadays which is to let the group assigned to do the
work do that work until it has finished, and then the chartering organizations
look at it.
Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM Group NBT France
Head of Domain Operations
Le 4 janv. 2012 à 14:24, Jonathan Robinson a écrit :
> Dear Stéphane,
> I have pleasure in attaching the work of the GNSO CCWG DT for consideration
> and discussion by the council at its next meeting.
> We concluded our work at the end of last year as planned. We made good
> progress after Dakar and were spurred on by a few new additions to the group
> and excellent support from ICANN staff.
> It is our understanding that the council will now consider this output prior
> to participating in any further ICANN community initiatives on the same topic.
> Happy new year and I look forward to discussing this with you and fellow
> councillors in the near future.
> Best wishes,
> Jonathan Robinson
> (in my capacity as chair of the GNSO CCWG Drafting Team)
> <Draft Principles for CWGs for GNSO Council Review 23 Dec 2011.pdf>