RE: [council] Draft Agenda GNSO Council meeting on 16 February 2012 at 15:00
A few thoughts / points.
1. We worked hard to bring the WG?s work to the council early this
year and it is unfortunate that a short term shift in my schedule meant that
I was not there to present our work at the last council meeting.
2. That said, this seems to be an important area of work which has
broad interest in it. Therefore it is both urgent to keep it moving but
also important that it gets the maximum engagement.
3. I checked the transcript and noted that the primary point discussed
at the most recent past GNSO Council Meeting was in and around the single
charter / multiple charter issue. This was a point we grappled with in the
working group. On balance we decided to present a view that a single
charter was required. But, this was not the result of a unanimous view so
it is not surprising that it received further discussion.
4. When the schedule was proposed for the meetings this year, I made
it clear that I would not be able to make the forthcoming council meeting
and that remains the case. I cannot attend the meeting next week.
Taking Bill?s suggestion into account as well as all of the above, it seems
sensible if not necessary to defer further discussion and the motion until
However, I?d like to take this opportunity emphasise my sense of both the
urgency and importance of moving this out beyond the GNSO and fully engaging
the broader community on the topic in order to aim to achieve wider, deeper
consensus on the issues involved as soon as possible.,
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: 08 February 2012 09:06
Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Draft Agenda GNSO Council meeting on 16 February 2012
Jonathan, as leader of this team, would you see a problem with Bill's
One alternate solution could be to start the discussion at this meeting with
a view to completing it in CR. However, there is a motion on the table here
so we may also feel we'd like to try and not delay this any more?
Le 8 févr. 2012 à 09:13, William Drake a écrit :
Thanks Glen. One point:
Item 5: Cross Community Working Group Drafting Team (CCWG DT) (10 minutes)
As with outreach, NCSG would prefer to defer this to a F2F in San Jose so
that we could probe a little deeper together and benefit from hearing the
views of any affected parties in the room before voting on how we might best
interface with them. I recognize that'd be a double deferral but we've
already done the same with outreach, and Wolf-Ulrich had included it on the
tentative SJ schedule he circulated a few weeks back. Would there be a
problem doing this?
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 6866 (20120207) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.