<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] For your review - draft motion and approach CCWG-Accountability
- To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] For your review - draft motion and approach CCWG-Accountability
- From: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 06:46:44 -0500
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=toast.net; s=smartermail; h=references:in-reply-to:x-originating-ip:content-type:mime-version :message-id:reply-to:date:subject:to:from; bh=9JouKJy7mj+TaNJiRzF0nYzsr6jioNsuz44Z5J+xkzw=; b=nKCCAqXwJu4GxNMWkY1GrrYQB7Ptl2QxH6/B+Erhbp/R6/JbB+sCeyer460UatJSy rm6xWWfGGaxCYlEh+R/eotqUDzjhlbEVhxqQcfsBihKKrEMsxRLJHmOtyJN1hCWsD +97zlrl0/tA62qfRlLlTdKfRNCCt6sUJw2VbFh930=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; q=dns; d=toast.net; s=smartermail; h=received:from:to:subject:date:reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references; b=nbjYXPHm/e0WgvkiFQMos8kacx7tyk1TV5P0BshkvBOpNOEFPSJdaembgqXX2a/kv W5fdjcr6SVtDunJTB3ddyim9Ikuqk+gIe2TmaSS3QhA5HvC4Mpmfmxp6vFbpxQLKn sd9RQOq0vDCfV6fc4pVrNg/3xFU6VpGY94nBXav6I=
- In-reply-to: <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E88F8A3510@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <D2F36706.62D6B%marika.konings@icann.org> <A416941AD213C9428D623560432AFBB62DDA8873@STNTEXMB10.cis.neustar.com> <SG2PR06MB11983A3AA2BD05707ED1BBA8CFA60@SG2PR06MB1198.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com> <D2F4A82B.63414%marika.konings@icann.org> <D2F4B1CC.B0237%jbladel@godaddy.com> <3c1e39d4815c4131bdba0046bcc2a711@toast.net> <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E88F8A3510@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit>
- Reply-to: egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi Bruce,
Thank you very much for the history lesson. I actually find it fascinating
- so much of our institutional memory is in the heads of the experienced
yet often is not being passed down to relative newcomers like myself. The
sample responses are quite helpful - I'd prefer to keep any we or our
individual Councillors submit similarly brief.
Thanks again,
Edward Morris
----------------------------------------
From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 9:57 AM
To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [council] For your review - draft motion and approach
CCWG-Accountability
Hello Edward,
>> I've been in communication with our Member, a few members of the NCSG PC
and one other NCSG Councillor and it appears that the preference in the
NCSG, at least amongst some, is that we hold separate votes on each of the
twelve recommendations. I thought about holding off on letting everyone
know but figured it might help for planning purposes if staff and our
leadership knew of our intent.
>> As the wording of the Proposed Approach indicated that voting on each
recommendation individually would be possible if requested by any Council
member please note that is my intent to make such a request and I do not
expect that intention will change between today and our open Council
meeting in Marrakech.
There is a little bit of history of a similar approach:
In September 2007, the GNSO passed a resolution to send the new gTLD policy
recommendations to the Board:
http://www.gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#200709
The new gTLD report contains 20 policy recommendations:
http://www.gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm
The NCUC submitted a minority statement on
Recommendation 6:
"Strings must not be contrary to generally accepted legal norms relating to
morality and public order that are recognized under international
principles of law.
Examples of such principles of law include, but are not limited to, the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,
intellectual property treaties administered by the World Intellectual
Property Organisation (WIPO) and the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property (TRIPS). "
See;
http://www.gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm
#_Toc48210873
And on
Recommendation 20:
" An application will be rejected if an expert panel determines that there
is substantial opposition to it from a significant portion of the community
to which the string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted. "
See:
http://www.gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm
#_Toc48210877
Avri Doria as a nominating committee appointee to the GNSO council also
submitted a minority report at:
http://www.gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm
#_Toc48210874\
All other recommendations received unanimous support.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
Former chair of the GNSO Council
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|