Re: [council] [gnso-ccwg-dt] GNSO CCWG DT - Final Draft Principles For GNSO Council

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Jonathan.

I have put this on the agenda for our next meeting, so the Council can discuss 
it then if it so wishes.

Stéphane



Le 10 janv. 2012 à 20:52, Jonathan Robinson a écrit :

> Hi Stéphane,
>  
> Many thanks for taking the time to respond and provide the questions below. 
>  
> I’d very much welcome some Council discussion on the points you have raised.
> Hopefully we can consider at least the first two when we next meet.
>  
> On your question re bii, I’ll review and come back to you shortly.
>  
> Best wishes,
>  
>  
>  
> Jonathan
>  
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: 05 January 2012 14:58
> To: jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Council
> Subject: [council] Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] GNSO CCWG DT - Final Draft Principles 
> For GNSO Council
>  
> 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 
> arises?
>  
> 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.
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> Stéphane Van Gelder
> Directeur Général / General manager
> INDOM Group NBT France
> ----------------
> Head of Domain Operations
> Group NBT
>  
> 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>
>  
> 
> 
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
> database 6769 (20120105) __________
> 
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> 
> http://www.eset.com