ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


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

Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question

  • To: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question
  • From: Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 14:14:48 +0200
  • Cc: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <001a01cf6129$9ba44060$d2ecc120$@afilias.info>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <2BFE31A0-3F05-49F5-A33F-6C2BB09C84EB@anwaelte.de> <43F9F4B8-DC6C-4377-9823-7E3510A852E4@anwaelte.de> <001a01cf6129$9ba44060$d2ecc120$@afilias.info>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail



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