ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [council] IGO/RC motion

  • To: "<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] IGO/RC motion
  • From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:18:03 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • In-reply-to: <53C46161.3060005@acm.org>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <BB41FBA4-0059-460F-9169-DF7902B93A72@anwaelte.de> <53C46161.3060005@acm.org>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AQHPn7faorCw5xO3SEOo+LOVwECb45uhg4iA
  • Thread-topic: [council] IGO/RC motion
  • User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/

Hello Avri and everyone,

As far as we can tell, procedurally, the language in the draft motion
tracks/mirrors the process requirements of Section 16 of the PDP Manual,
in that the motion calls for the original PDP Working Group to reconvene
to confer on the GNSO Council¹s proposal to modify the policy
recommendations while also providing for a public comment period for the
same proposed modification.

As to the implication of the Council vote, note that the Council needs
first to agree on the final modification itself, as it is for the Council
to determine the substance of this before sending anything on either to
the WG or out for public comment (assuming, that is, that the Council is
minded to make a modification in the first place). As Alan noted in his
email from yesterday, issues that the Council may need to finalize in this
regard could include, for instance, the nature of protection for the
various Red Cross names and the form/type of claims notice required for
permanent TMCH claims.

As such, provided the Council agrees with the Section 16 process as laid
out in the Briefing Note and the motion, the Council may wish to focus its
current discussion on the language, wording and nature of the substantive
proposal itself.

I hope this clarifies!


Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx

-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, July 14, 2014 at 7:01 PM
To: Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>"
Subject: Re: [council] IGO/RC motion

>I am wondering does this motion meet the conditions set down in the
>by-laws as explained in the briefing note?
>Does this vote indicate approval of these amendments as required?
>On 14-Jul-14 14:53, Thomas Rickert wrote:
>> All,
>> I herewith submit the attached motion as discussed during the London
>>meeting. I am sure we will continue the conversation in the light of the
>>latest developments.
>> Kind regards,
>> Thomas

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

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