Re: [council] New generation gTLD Registration Directory Service to replace WHOIS and Motion

[Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez <crg@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Amr,

I´m aware of the discussion
Nevertheless I think changes to the charter should be discussed once the whole 
Group is confirmed, if that is “proceduraly” possible, because 
This is not a GNSO initiated proposal
It has been going back and forth between Board, GNSO and WG
any change would be onside if it does not go back and forth the whole loop again
I would support to take it as on of the first issues to be dealt with once the 
group has taken the driving wheel and they feel comfortable

But I welcome the discussion


Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
_____________________

email: crg@xxxxxxxxxxx
Skype: carlos.raulg
+506 8837 7176 (cel)
+506 4000 2000 (home)
+506 2290 3678 (fax)
_____________________
Apartado 1571-1000
San Jose, COSTA RICA








> On Nov 19, 2015, at 8:43 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Hi Susan, Carlos and all,
> 
> On previous discussion of the proposed charter and motion, a concern was 
> raised regarding the absence of a rights impact assessment as one of 
> requirements listed as part of the phase 1 (and subsequent phases) 
> considerations.
> 
> This issue has been repetitively raised by Avri while she was on Council, and 
> was also included in the NCSG input to the public comment period for the 
> initial report. It was also included in the public comment report prepared by 
> staff, but I am having trouble identifying where this was included in the 
> proposed charter.
> 
> My thoughts on this are that, similar to the “Benefit Analysis” and “Risk 
> Assessment” requirements listed under phase 1 deliberations, a rights impact 
> assessment be included to involve identification of a rights impact 
> assessment requirements in phase 1 of the PDP, followed by a design in phase 
> 2, and guidance on how to proceed in phase 3.
> 
> I would appreciate us putting aside a few minutes to discuss this during 
> today’s call. I would like to handle this by suggesting an amendment to the 
> motion, specifically resolved clause 1, where along with approving the 
> charter, a reference to a change in the charter be made to include a bullet 
> under the phase 1 deliberations on page 69 saying something to this effect:
> 
> “Rights Impact analysis: Have registrants rights that may be affected been 
> analyzed and considered?”
> 
> I’m not personally a fan of suggested amendments to motions at a late stage 
> like this, but this isn’t a new topic. It’s been previously discussed on 
> several occasions.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
>> On Nov 18, 2015, at 6:45 PM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez <crg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Susan,
>> 
>> sorry for my delayed reaction. Some minor edits for clarity have been 
>> suggested for the motion (with track control)
>> <Motion - next-generation RDS PDP WG Charter - edit 18 October 2015[1].docx>
>> 
>> Otherwise I gladly second the motion for tomorrow session as well!
>> 
>> 
>> Best regards
>> 
>> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
>> _____________________
>> 
>> email: crg@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> Skype: carlos.raulg
>> +506 8837 7176 (cel)
>> +506 4000 2000 (home)
>> +506 2290 3678 (fax)
>> _____________________
>> Apartado 1571-1000
>> San Jose, COSTA RICA
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 1:45 PM, Susan Kawaguchi <susank@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 
>>> <Motion - next-generation RDS PDP WG Charter - 2 October 2015[1].docx>
>> 
>