ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

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

Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law

Thanks Marika, you are absolutely correct, I was just looking for an explicit option spelled out there. And Yes James, happy to volunteer, wild horses couldn't keep me away.... 

cheers Stephanie


On 2016-10-07 12:48, Marika Konings wrote:


Stephanie, please see scenario and consequences #2:

//
/The Council should specify why it is of the view that the proposed modification is not consistent. Furthermore the Council could consider whether//more work is required on the proposed modification to ensure that it is consistent with the intent of the policy recommendations (for example by reconstituting the IAG or forming a new group) or whether the original policy recommendations are in need of review./ 

//
‘Whether the original policy recommendations are in need of review’ would imply a PDP. 

Best regards,

Marika

*Marika Konings*
Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 

Email: marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>

//

/Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO/
/Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers>./
*From: *<owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
*Date: *Friday 7 October 2016 at 10:34
*To: *"James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> *Subject: *Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law
Thanks for this. I see no mention of my motion, which basically confirmed my position (and that of NCSG, whose submission missed the deadline) that the policy was fundamentally flawed. I recognize noone wants another PDP but Council could also take the position that the policy needs to be revisited, and request a charter. Seems logical if it has never been used in a decade. Anyway, I would submit that such a document should mention the fact that there were minority views in the IAG that the policy itself has flaws which demand a fix. 

Stephanie Perrin

On 2016-10-07 12:19, James M. Bladel wrote:

    Councilors –

    Having now considered --and withdrawn-- two separate motions on
    this topic, it is clear that we need to regroup, reassess, and
    consider our path(s) forward.

    Per the discussion on our 30 SEP call, I would like to convene a
    group of interested Councilors to kick off discussions and present
    options. For context, please see the attached Overview document
    prepared by Staff.  This summary is intended to provide
    backgrounds, and kick start ideas for resolution, but by no means
    is it meant to serve as an exhaustive list.

    I’m hopeful this group can work together to reconcile the diverse
    opinions on this issue, and come back to Council one or more
    motions that have sufficient support to pass.

    Thank you,

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