Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question
Jonathan, I do hope to get more feedback. So far, I do not really have information to act on, but I am standing by to do what is necessary to meet the deadline. Thanks, Thomas Am 26.04.2014 um 10:29 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > Thanks Thomas, > > You will have seen that the motion deadline is Monday 28th 23h59 UTC so, > assuming we will meet the 45 day deadline, we will need a motion on Monday. > > Let’s hope we can do that in such a way as to reflect the feedback you have > and retain flexibility to modify (if necessary) as we receive further > feedback. > > Let’s you and I talk on Monday. > > Jonathan > > From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 25 April 2014 20:38 > To: GNSO Council List > Subject: Fwd: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question > > All, > this is a gentle reminder to provide me with preliminary feedback. The > motions and documents deadline is approaching rapidly and I have only > received one response from the registrars so far. > > Also, I have reached out to Marilyn Cade (CBUC), Tony Holmes (ISPC), Kristina > Rosette (IPC), Robin Gross (NCUC), Bruce Tonkin (Registrars) and Ken Stubbs > (Registries) as they were listed in the final report of the PDP to cover > their respective groups and since they hopefully have first-hand information > on the discussions at the time. More people such as Avri, Bret and Alan are > still here - please to chime in and respond. > > Thanks and kind regards, > Thomas > > Anfang der weitergeleiteten Nachricht: > > > Von: Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Betreff: Aw: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question > Datum: 22. April 2014 14:40:58 MESZ > An: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx > Kopie: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > 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
|