ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

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

Re: [council] EWG Report on gTLD Directory Services

  • To: Bret Fausett <bret@xxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] EWG Report on gTLD Directory Services
  • From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 15:34:03 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx;
  • Cc: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <0EFFECFB-69E1-4CB9-9FAB-6C586E837FCE@nic.sexy>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <0EFFECFB-69E1-4CB9-9FAB-6C586E837FCE@nic.sexy>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AQHPjvbCQ49BU4IViEqECi0ovhodtZt+0zLQ
  • Thread-topic: [council] EWG Report on gTLD Directory Services
Hi Bret.  Volker and I were have a parallel discussion.

Could I note that we target the first post-London meeting to discuss our 
concrete next steps on EWG?  I think this will give the EWG a chance to sort 
out their minority report issue, and I think the public comment period will 
close (or nearly so).

Happy to raise this during the public session on WEdnsday, if desireable.

Thank you--

J.
__________________________
James Bladel
GoDaddy
jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>



On Jun 23, 2014, at 16:21, "Bret Fausett" <bret@xxxxxxxx<mailto:bret@xxxxxxxx>> 
wrote:

I appreciate that we have a very full agenda for Wednesday's meeting, which is 
slotted into an impossibly short time two-hour time slot, but I'd like us to 
briefly reflect on the report from the Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory 
Services (EWG), 
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40175189, during the 
Item 2 Section of the Agenda ("Review focus areas and provide updates on 
specific key themes / topics. Include review of Projects List and Action List").

Based on our discussion over the weekend and the presentations by the EWG here 
in London, it seems clear that the Council eventually will be asked to look at 
this report and possibly initiate a policy development process centered on it. 
I don't think we should take any action here in London, but perhaps we can use 
the time between this meeting and the next to review the report, consult with 
our constituencies, and think about putting together a drafting committee to 
prepare options for the Council about possible next steps.

I know we had a presentation on this in Sunday's session, but now we should 
reflect on where this goes from here. I thought I would raise it now, so we can 
give it some thought before the Council meeting. This ought to be a significant 
undertaking, and I think we should consider whether, how and when it fits into 
our current work schedule.

      Bret

--
Bret Fausett, Esq. * General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc. * 
http://www.uniregistry.link
- - - - -
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>