Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report
Dear Councillors, Due to a mix-up by staff, Amr circulated a slightly older version of this motion. With Amr¹s consent, the correct version has been uploaded to the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/lZRlAw and the final issue report can be found here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-final-issue-11jan16-en.pdf Many thanks and best wishes, Lars On 13/01/2016, 07:04, "owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Amr Elsadr" <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >Hi, > >I agree that a formal vote is not absolutely needed at this stage, but I >wonder whether or not a formal vote of the 3rd draft recommendations >would be helpful to the CCWG. I imagine that it will draw a very clear >picture of where the stakeholder groups/constituencies of one of the >CCWG¹s chartering organisations stand on each of the recommendations. > >Although these positions have probably been communicated by the appointed >members from the GNSO groups, my guess would be that the members of the >CCWG may still find a Council vote helpful. > >Just a thought. > >Thanks. > >Amr > >> On Jan 13, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Johan Helsingius <julf@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> Wolf-Ulrich, >> >>> Maybe tomorrow we could sort out and discuss the very last not yet >>> agreeable recs. The formal vote could then be taken at a later stage >>>maybe >>> even at the council meeting next week. >> >> I am not entirely sure why a formal vote is needed now, assuming >> there will have to be one more, final(?) draft - surely what counts >> is the vote on the *final* version. Or am I wrong in my assumptions? >> >> Julf >> >> >> > > Attachment:
smime.p7s
|