Re: [council] IGO INGO Final Issue Report & Motion for Council
Hi Avri, thanks for your question. I will now speak at the GNSO WG Newcomer Session and get back to you after that. Best, Thomas Am 05.06.2014 um 12:55 schrieb Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>: > > Hi, > > Does the Charter exist as a separate document, or is it only to be found > as an annex to the final issues report? > > Also has there been any in depth discussion in the council of the > charter yet. I don't recall it. > > As you recall NCSG has varied concerns, often expressed, about the scope > of addition of special protections beyond those that have been already > been granted. This concern translates into concern over the mandate in > the charter to deal with anything that had been discussed during the > IGO/INGO WG. A lot was discussed. I am also not clear on the scope of > identifiers that can be considered. Obviously it goes beyond those > already defined as excluded for second level, but I do not understand > the permissible scope for this PDP, and I have spent a far bit of time > bouncing around between the Final Report and the Final Issues report > trying to figure that out. For example I wasn't able to answer the > simple question: Are acronyms in scope for considerations? I am sure I > am missed it, but I missed it. > > So as we approach the vote I have to admit that I do not understand the > scope, and this came full face the other day when I tried to explain it > to an NCSG open policy meeting. I thus also do not have a good view of > the NSCG viewpoints on this except to understand that they run the > entire gambit. I need to understand the scope better and may not be > ready to vote at this point. > > I should note that while I am personally inclined to support opening the > UDRP and URS beyond business marks to support intergovernmental and > civil society needs, some of the NCSG is much less inclined to do so. > This makes it critical to understand the full scope. > > Apologies if it is crystal clear to everyone else and I am just missing > it. Thomas, I expect it is all crystal clear to you, so I would > appreciate some help in understanding the scope. > > Thanks > > avri > > On 05-Jun-14 11:35, Thomas Rickert wrote: >> All, >> Jonathan has kindly proposed the two motions we will discuss later >> today. I herewith second the motions. >> >> As you will recall, I have chaired the IGO/INGO PDP WG and would very >> much like to encourage Councillors to submit questions there might be >> relating to the motions to the Council list. This will enable me and >> staff to have all information you might be asking ready prior or in the >> call. >> >> Please note that the motions are a follow-up to the recommendation we >> unanimously approved previously and in which we recommended this very >> PDP should be conducted. >> >> Thanks and kind regards, >> Thomas >> >> >> Am 27.05.2014 um 00:54 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx >> <mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>: >> >>> All, >>> >>> >>> >>> Please see attached for two proposed motions for the next council meeting. >>> >>> >>> >>> Ordinarily, I expect that these would have come to you from Thomas >>> Rickert as chair of the PDP WG that developed the recommendation for >>> the Issue Report. >>> >>> >>> >>> However, since Thomas is currently on vacation, I have decided to >>> propose the motions. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> >>> >>> Jonathan >>> >>> <Motion to Initiate Curative Rights PDP - 23 May 2014.docx><Motion for >>> IGO INGO Curative Rights Charter Adoption - 25 May 2014.doc> >> Attachment:
signature.asc
|