<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
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.
</body>
</html>