Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question

[Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,
thanks to Jonathan for putting together and sending out the below message. 

I am more than happy to assist with making sure we get an answer prepared in 
time. 

Can I ask Councillors to get back to me offlist (in order not to swamp the 
list) with a status of the discussions with your respective groups? Certainly, 
one response per group is sufficient. 

If there is anything I can help with to facilitate your discussions, please let 
me know. 

The earlier I am provided with information on what direction your answers will 
take, the sooner I will be able to draft a motion and a letter to the NGPC for 
your review.

Thanks,
Thomas

Am 10.04.2014 um 19:10 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> 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: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail