RE: [council] IGO/RC motion

["Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alan (as well as James and others who have contributed to this and related
threads),

I think you have captured it very well in asking what exactly is being
sought by the NGPC and, particularly, are there compromises which may be
acceptable that we are not aware of.

It is a fair point to ask about the communications and I assure you that
Thomas and myself have worked behind the scenes.
The challenge is that we have got clear indications of what might be
acceptable, certainly in so far as the IGOs are concerned i.e. a
notification service, but this has not been provided in writing or in a
meeting with a representative or representatives of the NGPC so the Council
does not have the benefit of this information.
Perhaps as a consequence but in any event and, as you pointed out in your
mail of 15 July, the text of the proposed policy wording appears to offer
more (than the minimum requested) in the case of the IGOs and less in the
case of the RCRC.

Therefore, it seems to me that before we invoke a procedure that has some
contention, we need to be as sure as we absolutely can be that we are
invoking the procedure to deal with exactly what is being requested / may
produce a satisfactory outcome.

Hence the thinking along the lines Thomas has suggested i.e. as follows:

1. Let's make sure we are clear on and comfortable with how we invoke the
procedure
(Personally I found Mary's briefing note of very helpful in this regard).

2. Let's seek to get absolute (or as near as we can) clarity on what the
NGPC is thinking via written or attended meeting input.

Then, hopefully, we can somewhat smoothly put at least this aspect of this
very time-consuming process behind us.

Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 23 July 2014 19:42
To: Thomas Rickert; GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] IGO/RC motion 


Thanks for the heads up Thomas.

That unfortunately adds another month to the process. Is there really no way
to get clarification of what they meant outside of a Council meeting? This
does not speak well to our communications skills.

Alan

At 23/07/2014 01:24 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
>All,
>in my previous e-mail on this subject, I mentioned that Chris will join 
>the upcoming GNSO Council call. We have now spotted that I invited him 
>for the 25th and not the 24th (my bad - I took the June date from the 
>GNSO master calendar instead of the July date) and Chris is in a plane 
>at that time. I am happy to report that the NGPC willing to provide us 
>with information.
>However, such information will not be with us before the call.
>
>In my view, we have two topics to discuss, which are
>
>- getting a better understanding and clarity on how to invoke a 
>procedure that the Council has never invoked before and
>- the substance of the motion itself.
>
>Having discussed this with Jonathan, I would like to ask that we 
>discuss the procedural issue during the call. We might also discuss the 
>substance of the motion, but I would like to let you know that I will 
>likely withdraw the motion during the meeting pending further 
>clarification.
>
>Thanks,
>Thomas
>
>Am 19.07.2014 um 20:59 schrieb Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> >
> > All,
> > in the light of the discussions on the list,
> I have asked Chris Disspain to join the upcoming Council call and he 
> accepted the invitation.
> >
> > I am sure that this will help us understand
> better what the NGPC's thinking is so we can take this into account 
> when discussing the motion. I suggest to get back to the amendments 
> that were proposed once we have heard Chris.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Thomas
> >
> > =============
> > thomas-rickert.tel
> > +49.228.74.898.0
> >
> >> Am 17.07.2014 um 11:37 schrieb Volker
> Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >>
> >>
> >> I support the suggestions James made.
> >>
> >> V.
> >>
> >> Am 16.07.2014 19:14, schrieb James M. Bladel:
> >>> 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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
> >>
> >> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
> >>
> >> Volker A. Greimann
> >> - Rechtsabteilung -
> >>
> >> Key-Systems GmbH
> >> Im Oberen Werk 1
> >> 66386 St. Ingbert
> >> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> >> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> >> Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>
> >> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net 
> >> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
> >>
> >> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
> >> www.facebook.com/KeySystems
> >> www.twitter.com/key_systems
> >>
> >> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
> >> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: 
> >> DE211006534
> >>
> >> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
> >> www.keydrive.lu
> >>
> >> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich
> und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. 
> Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte 
> durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für 
> Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder 
> telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Should you have any further questions,
> please do not hesitate to contact us.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> Volker A. Greimann
> >> - legal department -
> >>
> >> Key-Systems GmbH
> >> Im Oberen Werk 1
> >> 66386 St. Ingbert
> >> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> >> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> >> Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>
> >> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net 
> >> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
> >>
> >> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan
> community on Facebook and stay updated:
> >> www.facebook.com/KeySystems
> >> www.twitter.com/key_systems
> >>
> >> CEO: Alexander Siffrin
> >> Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
> >>
> >> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
> >> www.keydrive.lu
> >>
> >> This e-mail and its attachments is intended
> only for the person to whom it is addressed. 
> Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. 
> You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail.
> If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, 
> kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us 
> by telephone.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>