Re: [council] Withdrawing the Motion to Adopt the Final Issue Report on a PDP to Review all RPMs in all gTLDs
Dear Amr, all, Here is the link to the public comment forum on the Preliminary Issue Report on the Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs, including the staff report on public comments: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rpm-prelim-issue-2015-10-09-en. The Report was published on 2 December 2015 and reflects all 22 comments received. Please let us know if you have any questions on either procedure or report content. Many thanks and best wishes, Lars On 20/01/2016, 03:09, "owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Amr Elsadr" <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >Hi, > >As you may have guessed from the subject line of this email, I am >formally withdrawing the motion I submitted on January 11th to adopt the >final issues report on the RPMs Review PDP. > >There are several reasons why I believe this to be a desirable course of >action. If you recall, when I submitted this motion, I hadn¹t actually >read the final issue report yet. Since reading it, I¹ve been considering >a withdrawal, but needed to wait to consult with the NCSG first. I did >this by reaching out to members of the NCSG immediately following the >submission of the motion as well as discussing the report and draft >charter during yesterday's monthly NCSG policy call. > >First, I agree with Phil¹s earlier email; that loading tomorrow¹s Council >call with the GNSO¹s letter to the CCWG, and three motions on the PPSAI >PDP WG¹s final report, new gTLDs subsequent rounds PDP WG charter and the >PDP to review all RPMs for all gTLDs is a bit much. More importantly, >since reading the final issues report, I believe that the report and >draft charter need some work done on them before they should be >considered by the Council for a formal vote. > >Since I have withdrawn the motion, I suggest we include this report as a >discussion item for tomorrow¹s call instead of a vote. I would also be >very grateful to see a staff report on the public comment period >following publication of the preliminary issue report for this PDP and/or >the public comment tool used to review the comments submitted. I¹m not >sure if these have been previously circulated, or not. If they have, then >I missed them and I apologise. If they haven¹t, it would be very helpful >to take a look at those, preferably before tomorrow¹s call. > >Thanks. > >Amr Attachment:
smime.p7s
|