Re: [council] IGO/RC motion
Hello James and everyone,
(Collating both your questions/emails into one reply)
On the proposed modification, i.e. Notifications vs Claims, that is one of
the options/topics that the Council may (should?) discuss and determine
which - or some other - is the preferable proposal.
On the Resolved clause language, the idea was to track the language and
intent of Section 16 of the PDP Manual, which does speak of reconvening
the WG (then called the PDP Team). FYI here is the wording for Section 16:
"Approved GNSO Council policies may be modified or amended by the GNSO
Council at any time prior
to the final approval by the ICANN Board as follows:
1.
The PDP Team is
reconvened or, if disbanded, reformed, and should
be consulted with regards to
the proposed amendments or modifications;
2.
The proposed amendments
or modifications are posted for public
comment for not less than thirty
(30) days;
3.
The GNSO Council
approves of such amendments or modifications with
a Supermajority Vote of
both Houses in favor.”
I hope this helps.
Cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 at 1:14 PM
To: Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>"
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] IGO/RC motion
>
>Some other thoughts:
>
>First ³Resolved² clause: Are we, in fact, re-convening the PDP WG? I
>thought the goal was to reconvene volunteers that had previous served on
>the PDP WG to form a consultative WG to consider the amendments. Also, I
>don¹t know if the Council should re-confirm Thomas, rather let the WG
>decide if he should be reconfirmed, or if they even need a permanent chair
>for this short-term effort.
>
>Proposed (friendly?) amendment:
>³The GNSO Council hereby calls for volunteers that have previously served
>in the IGO/NGO PDP WG to reconvene as a [Review Team], and establishes the
>previous Chair (Thomas Rickert) as Interim Chair."
>
>
>Second ³Resolved² Clause: Whatever we end up calling this group, it
>should flow through the subsequent clauses.
>Proposed (friendly?) amendment:
>³The GNSO requests the reconvened [Review Team] to considerŠ.²
>
>Third ³Resolved² Clause: 45 days is a tight deadline, should we allow the
>new group to report back if it needs more time?
>Proposed (friendly?) amendment:
>³The GNSO Council requests that the [Review Team] provide the Council with
>its recommendations in relation to the proposed amendment/modification
>within forty-five (45) days of reconvening the group, or report back to
>the Council prior to the end of this period with an updated time frame for
>completion of its work.²
>
>
>Thanks‹
>
>
>J.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 7/14/14, 13:53 , "Thomas Rickert" <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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
|