ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

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

Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report

  • To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report
  • From: Johan Helsingius <julf@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 20:12:47 +0100
  • In-reply-to: <D2B92BB1.A5CDD%jbladel@godaddy.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <EB53F723569A4E088BC175075E628C4D@WUKPC> <5693B548.8040008@julf.com> <D2B92BB1.A5CDD%jbladel@godaddy.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0
Hi, James, and thank you for the clarifications!

> On each issue, the Council will consider the question of whether or not
> the harmonized statement reflects the consolidated position of the GNSO,
> including any conditions or unmet concerns expressed in SG/C comments.  It
> will be a yes(Support) or no(Object) vote, with any abstentions having the
> effect of 'Support'.

And in case of lack of majority support, it will be 'limited support'?

> One point on which we have been consistent is that the GNSO response is
> limited to only the CCWG Third Draft, and is not responding to comments
> filed by the Board or other groups.  This is essential to allow the CCWG
> to proceed on any next (final?) draft and its work on WS2.

So we are assuming one more round of comments?

> Hope this is helpful!

Very much so, thanks!

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