ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question

  • To: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question
  • From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 18:10:10 +0100
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Organization: Afilias
  • Reply-to: <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Ac9U37pVNGMfDV+cTSyNSj0xaeNagA==

All,

 

Following on from previous dialogue and the Council meeting today, it seems
to me that the way forward is to focus as closely as possible on the
question being asked and to make every attempt to respond in a timely and
effective manner.

 

This means that, assuming it is required, a motion to be voted on needs to
be submitted to the Council by 28 April for consideration at the 8 May 2014
meeting.

 

We are being asked  (full letter attached for reference) to 

 

1.       . advise ICANN as to whether the GNSO Council believes that this
additional provision is inconsistent with the letter and intent of GNSO
Policy Recommendation 19 on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level
Domains; 
or

2.       advise ICANN that the GNSO Council needs additional time for
review, including an explanation as to why additional time is required.

 

I believe that the question to take to your respective stakeholder groups /
constituencies  is therefore:

 

Is this additional provision inconsistent with the letter and intent of GNSO
Policy Recommendation 19?

It will be helpful to have as clear as possible an answer as soon as
possible along the following lines:

 

.         No. It is not inconsistent (. with the letter and intent .).
and

.         Possibly, an explanation as to why it is not inconsistent.
and

.         Are there any other qualifying points that the Council should make
in its response to the NGPC?

 

OR

 

.         Yes. It is inconsistent ( . with the letter and intent . ).
and

.         Possibly, an explanation as to why it is inconsistent.
and

.         Is there a process by which the Council could assist the NGPC in
resolving this issue and in what time frame?

 

Please can you all act as quickly as possible to provide an answer to the
above.  The timing is very tight.

 

We already have an indication of where the BC & the IPC stand on this i.e.
no, it is not inconsistent.

 

Someone will need to lead on drafting a motion (for submission to the
Council on or before 28 April) and an associated letter to the NGPC.

Given the time constraints, this should probably take place in parallel with
the consultation work.

Can we please have a volunteer to lead this effort and ensure it gets done?
Thomas?

 

I have tried to simplify and focus the problem here in the interest of
providing a representative, timely and effective response.

I trust that in doing so I have not discounted any material points in the
discussion to date.  Please correct me if I have.

 

 

Jonathan

 

 

 

Attachment: Letter to GNSO re Spec 13 - Final.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>