ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [council] Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] GNSO CCWG DT - Final Draft Principles For GNSO Council

  • To: "'Stéphane Van Gelder'" <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] GNSO CCWG DT - Final Draft Principles For GNSO Council
  • From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:52:35 -0000
  • Cc: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <CE5E46CA-82C0-4956-927A-8411FEB8AF33@indom.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Organization: Ipracon
  • References: <003501cccae4$25de6d70$719b4850$@robinson@ipracon.com> <CE5E46CA-82C0-4956-927A-8411FEB8AF33@indom.com>
  • Reply-to: <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AczLusgyiIC0MkDGRnG+e0IpovEOzgEFjLOA

Hi Stéphane,


Many thanks for taking the time to respond and provide the questions below.


I?d very much welcome some Council discussion on the points you have raised.

Hopefully we can consider at least the first two when we next meet.


On your question re bii, I?ll review and come back to you shortly.


Best wishes,






From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: 05 January 2012 14:58
To: jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Council
Subject: [council] Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] GNSO CCWG DT - Final Draft Principles
For GNSO Council


Thanks Jonathan. Please convey my thanks to the group for the energy and
time it has devoted to this work.


I would like to ask how the group envisions the Council using its output?
You write that it is the group's expectations that this output will now be
considered prior to the GNSO participating in any further CWGs. Do you think
these should be added to the GNSO's R&Ps, or should they just be used as a
standalone reference document whenever the question of participation in a
CWG arises?


In the document itself:


On 2aii, we've seen several cases recently where the sponsoring bodies (be
they SOs or ACs) don't exactly see eye to eye on the charter. This says that
there should be consensus. What if there isn't? Is the idea to say that in
such cases, the GNSO would not participate until such a time as there is?


On bii, when should SOs and ACs do this? I don't understand what is being
said here? Do you expect SOs and ACs to solicit the advice of other bodies
during the execution of the CWG's work? If so, I find this strange as it
seems to go against the accepted norm nowadays which is to let the group
assigned to do the work do that work until it has finished, and then the
chartering organizations look at it.




Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM Group NBT France

Head of Domain Operations

Group NBT


Le 4 janv. 2012 à 14:24, Jonathan Robinson a écrit :

Dear Stéphane,


I have pleasure in attaching the work of the GNSO CCWG DT for consideration
and discussion by the council at its next meeting.


We concluded our work at the end of last year as planned.  We made good
progress after Dakar and were spurred on by a few new additions to the group
and excellent support from ICANN staff.


It is our understanding that the council will now consider this output prior
to participating in any further ICANN community initiatives on the same


Happy new year and I look forward to discussing this with you and fellow
councillors in the near future.


Best wishes,



Jonathan Robinson

(in my capacity as chair of the GNSO CCWG Drafting Team)



<Draft Principles for CWGs for GNSO Council Review 23 Dec 2011.pdf>


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 6769 (20120105) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.


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