RE: [council] Proposed motion on Rec 6 CWG

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Technically, I think the deadline was met because the date on the message was 
30 November.  Please correct me if I am wrong on that.

 

It seems to me that the more important question is whether there is support for 
the motion or if there are concerns about it that we can discuss in our 
respective groups and on the Council list in the next week leading up to our 8 
December Council meeting.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 8:56 AM
To: Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Proposed motion on Rec 6 CWG

 


This motion is too late isn't it? It came to my inbox at 3:00 UTC 1Dec.
And I am just now up and able to review it. Given upcoming travel, need
to vet with SGs or Cs, we should be very strict about the deadline,
IMHO.

Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] Proposed motion on Rec 6 CWG
> From: "Mary Wong" 
> Date: Tue, November 30, 2010 9:02 pm
> To: 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello again everyone
>  
> I'd like to propose a motion for the Council's consideration at the 8 
> December meeting. This motion relates to the recommendations made recently by 
> the cross-community working group (CWG) regarding implementation of the 
> Council's Recommendation 6 (which formed the basis for the "morality and 
> public order" section of the DAG.)
>  
> You'll recall that the Council supported GNSO participation in the CWG, in a 
> resolution passed on 8 September. As you may also recall, the CWG's task 
> included making recommendations that would render the MAPO section of the DAG 
> acceptable to the broader community, yet still accomplishing the 
> implementation of Recommendation 6. 
>  
> 
> I understand that there is concern amongst some Council members that 
> continuing a cross-community working group model will in some way diminish 
> the GNSO's role in policy development and/or impinge on Consensus Policies. 
> This concern is part of a wider discussion that to my mind is not implicated 
> by the Rec 6 CWG process or recommendations, in relation to which the much 
> more pressing concern is to ensure that the ICANN Board, staff and community 
> do NOT interpret the Council's silence and inactivity, following the original 
> September motion, as lack of GNSO community support for the CWG's 
> recommendations. 
>  
> Thus, I propose a motion, as follows:
>  
> WHEREAS, on 8 September 2010 the GNSO Council endorsed GNSO participation in 
> a  joint working group with other interested Supporting Organizations 
> (SO�s) and Advisory Committee (AC�s) to provide guidance to the ICANN new 
> gTLD Implementation Team and the ICANN Board in relation to the 
> implementation of the Council's Recommendation 6 regarding strings that 
> contravene generally-accepted legal norms relating to morality and public 
> order that are recognized under international principles of law;
>  
> WHEREAS, the Recommendation 6 cross-community working group (CWG) was 
> established in accordance with the Terms of Reference also approved by the 
> GNSO Council on 8 September 2010;
>  
> AND WHEREAS, the CWG has since delivered a set of recommendations regarding 
> implementation of the GNSO Council's Recommendation 6 for new gTLDs to the 
> ICANN Board and community;
>  
> RESOLVED, the Council thanks the CWG and its participants, from the GNSO and 
> other SOs and the ACs, for their hard work; and acknowledges that the CWG 
> recommendations do not constitute Consensus Policy or GNSO policy development 
> otherwise within the purview of the GNSO;
>  
> RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Council hereby endorses the CWG recommendations as 
> representing. as far as possible, consensus among the various stakeholders in 
> the ICANN community on effective mechanisms for the implementation of 
> Recommendation 6.
>  
> Thanks and cheers
> Mary
>  
>  
> 
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law
> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
> Two White Street
> Concord, NH 03301
> USA
> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
> Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: 
> http://ssrn.com/author=437584
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law 
> Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now 
> known as the University of 
> New Hampshire School of Law. Please 
> note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the 
> convention: firstname.lastname@xxxxxxxxxxx. For more information on the 
> University 
> of New Hampshire School of Law, please 
> visit law.unh.edu
> 
> 
>