[council] IGO/RC motion

[Alan Greenberg]

Mary, on the proposed modifications, it is fine 
to have Council discuss what changes to pass on 
to the WG. I am sure that for some, the answer is 
NO CHANGES!  But I thought that the point of this 
exercise was to consider what the NGPC is prepared to offer to the GAC.

In the case of the IGO change, the wording is 
considering a lot more that what *I* think the 
NGPC asked for (and therefore, in my opinion, 
will be a LOT harder to come to closure on). In 
the case of the RCRC, what is being proposed in 
the resolution is less than what the NGPC wants 
to propose (base on my reading).

So what we need is clarity on EXACTLY what the 
NGPC is asking for. Then we can decide to alter 
it or not. According to the page that Glen 
posted, this wording was written by staff. Can we 
please have confirmation that it is indeed what 
the NGPC meant (since it is not what they said as 
far as I can see). Or if it is not what they 
meant, can we have an alternative version.

This is going to be a difficult enough thing to 
carry out without this added level of confusion.

Alan

At 16/07/2014 01:23 PM, Mary Wong wrote:
>Hello James and everyone,
>
>(Collating both your questions/emails into one reply)
>
>On the proposed modification, i.e. Notifications vs Claims, that is one of
>the options/topics that the Council may (should?) discuss and determine
>which - or some other - is the preferable proposal.
>
>On the Resolved clause language, the idea was to track the language and
>intent of Section 16 of the PDP Manual, which does speak of reconvening
>the WG (then called the PDP Team). FYI here is the wording for Section 16:
>
>"Approved GNSO Council policies may be modified or amended by the GNSO
>Council at any time prior
>to the final approval by the ICANN Board as follows:
>
>
>
>1.
> 
>The PDP Team is reconvened or, if disbanded, reformed, and should
>be consulted with regards to
>the proposed amendments or modifications;
>
>
>
>2.
> 
>The proposed amendments or modifications are posted for public
>comment for not less than thirty
>(30) days;
>
>
>
>3.
> 
>The GNSO Council approves of such amendments or modifications with
>a Supermajority Vote of
>both Houses in favor.”
>
>I hope this helps.
>
>Cheers
>Mary
>
>Mary Wong
>Senior Policy Director
>Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
>Email: mary.wong at icann.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
>Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 at 1:14 PM
>To: Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de>, "<council at gnso.icann.org>"
><council at gnso.icann.org>
>Subject: Re: [council] IGO/RC motion
>
> >
> >Some other thoughts:
> >
> >First ³Resolved² clause:  Are we, in fact, re-convening the PDP WG?  I
> >thought the goal was to reconvene volunteers that had previous served on
> >the PDP WG to form a consultative WG to consider the amendments. Also, I
> >don¹t know if the Council should re-confirm Thomas, rather let the WG
> >decide if he should be reconfirmed, or if they even need a permanent chair
> >for this short-term effort.
> >
> >Proposed (friendly?) amendment:
> >³The GNSO Council hereby calls for volunteers that have previously served
> >in the IGO/NGO PDP WG to reconvene as a [Review Team], and establishes the
> >previous Chair (Thomas Rickert) as Interim Chair."
> >
> >
> >Second ³Resolved² Clause:  Whatever we end up calling this group, it
> >should flow through the subsequent clauses.
> >Proposed (friendly?) amendment:
> >³The GNSO requests the reconvened [Review Team] to considerŠ.²
> >
> >Third ³Resolved² Clause:  45 days is a tight deadline, should we allow the
> >new group to report back if it needs more time?
> >Proposed (friendly?) amendment:
> >³The GNSO Council requests that the [Review Team] provide the Council with
> >its recommendations in relation to the proposed amendment/modification
> >within forty-five (45) days of reconvening the group, or report back to
> >the Council prior to the end of this period with an updated time frame for
> >completion of its work.²
> >
> >
> >Thanks‹
> >
> >
> >J.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On 7/14/14, 13:53 , "Thomas Rickert" <rickert at anwaelte.de> wrote:
> >
> >>All,
> >>I herewith submit the attached motion as discussed during the London
> >>meeting. I am sure we will continue the conversation in the light of the
> >>latest developments.
> >>
> >>Kind regards,
> >>Thomas
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>