ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


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

Re: [council] Motion for IRTP-B Final Report and Recommendations

  • To: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [council] Motion for IRTP-B Final Report and Recommendations
  • From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 12:06:58 +0200
  • Cc: "GNSO Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <514603187-1307041124-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-714684792-@b15.c32.bise6.blackberry>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <514603187-1307041124-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-714684792-@b15.c32.bise6.blackberry>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Thanks Tim.

I had already planned an agenda item for the IRTP-B final report for our June 9 
meeting but was unsure whether we'd get a motion for this.

I have updated the agenda item with a reference to your motion, for discussion 
only at this stage.

The new version of the agenda will be posted by Glen shortly.

Stéphane



Le 2 juin 2011 à 20:59, tim@xxxxxxxxxxx a écrit :

> No. I Just want to open discussion on it.
> 
> Tim
> 
> ------Original Message------
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder
> To: Tim Ruiz
> Cc: GNSO Council
> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for IRTP-B Final Report and Recommendations
> Sent: Jun 2, 2011 1:56 PM
> 
> Thanks Tim.
> 
> So just to be clear, you are NOT making this motion for our June 9 meeting?
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> 
> 
> Le 1 juin 2011 à 23:13, Tim Ruiz a écrit :
> 
>> A proposed motion for the final report and recommendations of the IRTP-B
>> WG is attached in both doc and txt formats.
>> 
>> Thanks to Marika for putting this together. I made a few edits because
>> my personal opinion is that recommendations 8 and 9 are not fully baked
>> yet. While I have faith in Staff's ability to do what is asked of it in
>> those two recommendations, I do not feel it is appropriate. There are
>> policy aspects of those two recommendations that are yet unaddressed.
>> Using an implementation plan to flesh them out is not appropriate or
>> fair to either the community or to Staff.
>> 
>> As Liaison to this WG I should have caught that sooner, but I am not
>> sure the WG would have gotten any further with them either way. As a
>> result I have left them mentioned in Resolve(D) but have not yet had
>> time to ocnsider how to frame them. 
>> 
>> In any event, the Council has not had opportunity to discuss the report
>> so voting on this motion during the meeting on the 9th is not practical.
>> The moton is being presented here to get it on the agenda for discussion
>> purposes only. I do believe we could be able to vote on it as early as
>> Singapore.
>> 
>> Thanks, 
>> Tim
>> <Motion-IRTP-PartB-Final-Report-and-Recommendations.doc><Motion-IRTP-PartB-Final-Report-and-Recommendations.txt>
> 
> 





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