<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] Re: Action items from GNSO Council call on 17 January regarding the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal
Hi Paul and everyone,
The staff understanding was that what was, and is to be, included in the final
document that lays out the Council’s response will basically be those SG/C
comments that are considered to be most salient to the specific point being
made (e.g. a GNSO condition). We therefore assumed that any additions of
specific SG/C comments at this point would first go through a review process
with James and possibly the Sub Team (as they were the ones that compiled the
extract of SG/C comments). Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that none of
these is either a staff position or view on what ought or ought not to be
included or added to the document!
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx
Telephone: +1-603-5744889
From: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:PMcGrady@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 22:20
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>>,
"council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>"
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: Action items from GNSO Council call on 17 January regarding the
CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal
Thanks Mary. Just a quick question on Rec 9. Why would there need to be a
review of whether or not to include the IPC comments? Everyone else’s comments
were included, so I don’t know why the IPCs would be subject to a review to see
if they would be included. Thanks for your thoughts.
Best,
Paul
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 8:17 AM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [council] Action items from GNSO Council call on 17 January regarding
the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal
Dear all,
Here are the notes that staff took in relation to action items stemming from
the Special GNSO Council meeting that just concluded. Please let us know if we
have missed or mischaracterized anything.
ACTION ITEMS:
* Letter explaining GNSO Council response - James to prepare draft for
Council consideration before 21 January, assisted by Keith and Ed
* Rec 5, 11 - James to draft additional language along the lines of what
was discussed/agreed on the call, assisted by Ed and Paul
* Rec 1 - reinsert BC note about strong right of inspection (perhaps with
cross-reference in/to Rec 3?)
* Rec 2 - change "unanimous support" to "broad support"
* Rec 3, 4 - no change
* Rec 6 - remove last sentence; add note that certain questions remain to
be resolved in WS2
* Rec 7 - no change
* Rec 8 – further elaboration needed on note about timeliness (including
replies and deadlines)
* Rec 9 - Review whether IPC comment on AOC section 8(b) and direct
constituency participation in review teams should be included; review generally
for accuracy
* Rec 10 - emphasize need for it to be a community-led effort
* Rec 12 - no change
Staff will follow up with James and the various Council volunteers to ensure
that you have the updates as soon as practicable.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>
Telephone: +1-603-5744889
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if
this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it.
Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege.
Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|