[council] [gnso-ccwg-dt] GNSO CCWG DT - Final Draft Principles For GNSO Council

[Stéphane Van Gelder]

Thanks Jonathan.

I have put this on the agenda for our next meeting, so the Council can discuss it then if it so wishes.

Stéphane



Le 10 janv. 2012 à 20:52, Jonathan Robinson a écrit :

> Hi Stéphane,
>  
> Many thanks for taking the time to respond and provide the questions below. 
>  
> I’d very much welcome some Council discussion on the points you have raised.
> Hopefully we can consider at least the first two when we next meet.
>  
> On your question re bii, I’ll review and come back to you shortly.
>  
> Best wishes,
>  
>  
>  
> Jonathan
>  
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: 05 January 2012 14:58
> To: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com
> Cc: council at gnso.icann.org Council
> Subject: [council] Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] GNSO CCWG DT - Final Draft Principles For GNSO Council
>  
> Thanks Jonathan. Please convey my thanks to the group for the energy and time it has devoted to this work.
>  
> I would like to ask how the group envisions the Council using its output? You write that it is the group's expectations that this output will now be considered prior to the GNSO participating in any further CWGs. Do you think these should be added to the GNSO's R&Ps, or should they just be used as a standalone reference document whenever the question of participation in a CWG arises?
>  
> In the document itself:
>  
> On 2aii, we've seen several cases recently where the sponsoring bodies (be they SOs or ACs) don't exactly see eye to eye on the charter. This says that there should be consensus. What if there isn't? Is the idea to say that in such cases, the GNSO would not participate until such a time as there is?
>  
> On bii, when should SOs and ACs do this? I don't understand what is being said here? Do you expect SOs and ACs to solicit the advice of other bodies during the execution of the CWG's work? If so, I find this strange as it seems to go against the accepted norm nowadays which is to let the group assigned to do the work do that work until it has finished, and then the chartering organizations look at it.
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> Stéphane Van Gelder
> Directeur Général / General manager
> INDOM Group NBT France
> ----------------
> Head of Domain Operations
> Group NBT
>  
> Le 4 janv. 2012 à 14:24, Jonathan Robinson a écrit :
> 
> 
> Dear Stéphane,
>  
> I have pleasure in attaching the work of the GNSO CCWG DT for consideration and discussion by the council at its next meeting.
>  
> We concluded our work at the end of last year as planned.  We made good progress after Dakar and were spurred on by a few new additions to the group and excellent support from ICANN staff.
>  
> It is our understanding that the council will now consider this output prior to participating in any further ICANN community initiatives on the same topic.
>  
> Happy new year and I look forward to discussing this with you and fellow councillors in the near future.
>  
> Best wishes,
>  
>  
> Jonathan Robinson
> (in my capacity as chair of the GNSO CCWG Drafting Team)
>  
>  
> <Draft Principles for CWGs for GNSO Council Review 23 Dec 2011.pdf>
>  
> 
> 
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6769 (20120105) __________
> 
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> 
> http://www.eset.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20120111/022caac6/attachment.html>