ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


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

[council] FW: Update to GNSO Council meeting Wednesday 11 February at 13:00 in Canning

  • To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] FW: Update to GNSO Council meeting Wednesday 11 February at 13:00 in Canning
  • From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 03:27:58 +0000
  • Accept-language: fr-FR, en-US
  • In-reply-to: <B332B150D5207A489C5E704E2F6220CAB0E52859@EXCH-01.CORP.CIRA.CA>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <7d044c0416bc4d67ab17aab8c407d7bf@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <B332B150D5207A489C5E704E2F6220CAB0E52859@EXCH-01.CORP.CIRA.CA>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AdBE6TgMcx7fwk/xTde02+K3ssZR4AAv2fXgAAB0yFA=
  • Thread-topic: Update to GNSO Council meeting Wednesday 11 February at 13:00 in Canning

FYI
Item 10: ccNSO Update


Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>

From: Byron Holland [mailto:byron.holland@xxxxxxx]
Sent: mercredi 11 février 2015 04:23
To: Glen de Saint Géry
Cc: Bart Boswinkel; Jonathan Robinson; Marika Konings; Lars Hoffmann
Subject: RE: Update to GNSO Council meeting Wednesday 11 February at 13:00 in 
Canning

Hi,

Unfortunately I will not be able attend.

The current hot topics in the ccNSO are:


1)      Framework of Interpretation (FOI) WG is coming to conclusion at this 
meeting.  It reviewed all existing policies regarding delegation, redelegation, 
and retirement of ccTLDs.  It was joint WG with the GAC, started in 2011.  We 
expect the GAC to be silent on the issue, neither approve nor formally object 
to the outcome of the FOI.  This is important due to the linkages with IANA 
oversight transition issue.

2)      IANA oversight transition.  As a directly affected customer of the IANA 
functions and a chartering member of the CWG, we are deeply involved in this 
rapidly evolving issue.  At this point opinions in the cc community are 
evolving and there is no current consensus on which "model" will become the 
preferred outcome.

3)      ICANN Accountability.  The cc community is a charter member of this WG, 
supplying one of the co-chairs as well as a number of members.  It is still 
early days in this groups life, but it is one that the ccNSO will also be 
paying close attention to.  We are expecting that some of the outputs of this 
WG will be required before the CWG will be able to come to any final proposals, 
potentially impacting the timing of CWG proposals.

Best regards,
Byron




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