Re: [council] DRAFT GNSO Council teleconference agenda 14 April 2016 at 21:00 UTC

["WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Rubens,

I think both approaches have its value. And to avoid useless work the 
recommendation is intended to start with a light approach of elaborating and 
defining the methods.
Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: Rubens Kuhl
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 8:55 PM
To: WUKnoben
Cc: Amr Elsadr ; James M. Bladel ; Paul McGrady (Policy) ; Glen de Saint 
Géry ; GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] DRAFT GNSO Council teleconference agenda 14 April 
2016 at 21:00 UTC


> Em 14 de abr de 2016, à(s) 15:42:000, WUKnoben 
> <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
>
> All,
>
> following the discussion on 12 April there is one request to alter 
> recommendation 21 with regards to its suggested level of acceptance.
> I therefore like to introduce the following amendment to the motion:
>
> <<
> Resolved:
>
> 1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Review Recommendations Feasibility and 
> Prioritization analysis (see: 
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-en.pdf) 
> with the modification of Recommendation 21, that
> the council recommends staff working with the GNSO to institute methods of 
> information sharing of highly relevant research related to gTLDs to help 
> the GNSO community members increase their knowledge base (low priority)
> > >
> I'd like to ask Amr as the seconder of the motion whether he accepts this 
> amendment as friendly.
> I apologize for the late submission and am looking forward to a fruitful 
> discussion.
> Best regards
>
> Wolf-Ulrich

Wolf-Urich,

Not to propose any language modifications but to add to the discussion, I 
would like to mention the RySG comments on this recommendation:
"To the extent it is possible to predict in advance what stakeholder groups 
may be impacted by future policy development efforts, that would be very 
helpful. It is probably more likely though to be able to do that after 
specific policy issues are identified. Certainly, this seems like a very 
good recommendation to be implemented in Issue Reports. It would make more 
sense to commission an analysis that is specific to the policy development 
process, rather than a wide-ranging analysis that may serve no purpose."


Rubens