<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Michele and all,</p>
<p>very simple: there is just a target set in Res. 3, and Res. 4
imposes an automatic withdrawal independent from whether the
target has been achieved or not. I think the dependency between
both should be phrased more clear.</p>
<p>Bet regards</p>
<p>Wolf-Ulrich<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 14.07.2017 um 10:47 schrieb Michele
Neylon - Blacknight:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2B48172F-779F-425B-A595-79C533CB35DF@blacknight.com">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Title" content="">
<meta name="Keywords" content="">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Wolf-Ulrich</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Sorry, but which part of the motion
is causing this concern for you? I honestly can’t see it.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Regards</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><br>
Michele</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>--</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Mr Michele Neylon</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Blacknight Solutions</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Hosting, Colocation & Domains</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.blacknight.com/">https://www.blacknight.com/</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://blacknight.blog/">http://blacknight.blog/</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Personal blog:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://michele.blog/">https://michele.blog/</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Some thoughts: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://ceo.hosting/">https://ceo.hosting/</a>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>-------------------------------</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd,
Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty</span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93
X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845</span><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>From: </span></b><span><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org"><council-bounces@gnso.icann.org></a>
on behalf of "Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de"><wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de></a><br>
<b>Date: </b>Friday 14 July 2017 at 00:03<br>
<b>To: </b><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">"council@gnso.icann.org"</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org"><council@gnso.icann.org></a><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[council] Motion on next steps in
relation to the charter for the CCWG-IG</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">All,<br>
<br>
following the discussion at the council call today I think
Res. 3 and 4 are lacking consistency with respect to the
withdrawal from the present structure and a (potential and not
impossible) GNSO engagement in the new structure. The GNSO
should definitely not take any step towards withdrawal before
the future model is clear. I'd like to encourage the
proponents of the motion to take this into consideration when
reintroducing the deferred motion.<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
<br>
Wolf-Ulrich<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<u>Res. from the motion</u><br>
<br>
3. The GNSO Council requests that members of the CCWG-IG and
others interested parties come together to explore a framework
/ model that more fully addresses the concerns that have been
expressed by the GNSO Council, and submit this framework /
model to the GNSO Council for its consideration by ICANN60.<br>
<br>
4. To facilitate the work as requested under Resolved clause
#3, allowing for a reasonable time to coordinate with other
SOs and ACs to develop a new structure, and to ensure there is
no gap between the retirement of the CCWG-IC and the
establishment of its successor group, the GNSO Council shall
withdraw as a Chartering Organization from the CCWG-IG
effective at the conclusion of ICANN 60 in Abu Dhabi.
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>