ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

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

Re: [council] CCWG-Accountability timeline

  • To: David Cake <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] CCWG-Accountability timeline
  • From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 13:07:30 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • In-reply-to: <87E6EAC5-4E34-42F8-B8DB-968B38E395B7@difference.com.au>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <87E6EAC5-4E34-42F8-B8DB-968B38E395B7@difference.com.au>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AQHRFVuq53H1ZgHnVkKibeg/yvkFpJ6I1aOA
  • Thread-topic: [council] CCWG-Accountability timeline
  • User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.7.151005
For your information, you will find the potential CCWG-Accountability
timeline referenced in David¹s message attached.

Best regards,

Marika

On 02/11/15 04:42, "David Cake" <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of
dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>       The timeline for SOAC endorsement (obviously including GNSO) of the
>CCWG-Accountability proposal is quite short. The final report is due 15
>Nov, and we need to have comments in by Dec 21. Of course comments by
>individuals, and SGs and constituencies are possible, but the co-chairs
>have indicated that commentary as a chartering organisation will be most
>valuable to them at this point, so we should plan to provide that. Given
>the relatively short time frame for producing GNSO consensus comments, we
>may wish to start discussion, at least of our process, prior to the
>delivery of the report in two weeks.
>
>       One suggestion would be for the GNSO appointed members of the CCWG,
>perhaps including observers if appropriate, to outline at least issues
>they think are significant to the GNSO?
>
>
>       David

Attachment: Potential Timeline.pdf
Description: Potential Timeline.pdf

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