ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] Schedule/Timing of AoC Reviews

  • To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] Schedule/Timing of AoC Reviews
  • From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 14:38:20 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Authentication-results: gnso.icann.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;gnso.icann.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=godaddy.com;
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=secureservernet.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-godaddy-com; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=uIhlkqZC5+J8ME6jkE9qsyYbSZ+1lDx52VEzNGg9fJY=; b=RNOrLNBmDdY+dc+yNcDuBxNH30zyQZBB/cFtG5R02QzD9YgxAgxYEOI1L5hZeeU8FKHHR1/73QciM54dAUlMvJ5fJTlFggb37MflK0K3uI0wazV2SF5snlZop5pmJSVZcngqtPzZfJrjbLhXfhzMn+A/vBLrCxGWiaKy5bSP3vE=
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
  • Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
  • Thread-index: AQHRqG4ZOp1VIP8CeUelNwnmwzQSpQ==
  • Thread-topic: Schedule/Timing of AoC Reviews
  • User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.6.150930
Council Colleagues -

As discussed previously, I raised the topic of scheduled Reviews (as required 
under the Affirmation of Commitments) with the chairs of other SOs and ACs.  
The discussion was sparse, but a few other groups shared the concern that two 
of these (ATRT3 and WHOIS2) could potentially collide with existing CCWGs and 
PDPs (specifically, RDS and implementation of Work Stream 1 of CCWG-ACCT).

However, there was no consensus as to what actions, if any, should be taken at 
this time.  In the absence of unified and formal guidance from the Community, 
the reviews will proceed as scheduled.  Any proposals to change the timing or 
scope would require engagement with the Board, and also likely NTIA.

If I recall, there will be a few opportunities to discuss this at the Policy 
Forum in Helsinki.  My recommendation is that we (GNSO, SGs, Cs, SO/ACs, etc.) 
continue to raise any remaining concerns in those sessions.

Thank you,

J.
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>