[council] IGO/RC motion

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Thu Jul 24 11:56:38 UTC 2014


I accept that we should have direct clarification 
from the NGPC. However, I would also suggest that 
when the resolution is resubmitted to Council, we 
have our current best understanding of the request in the proposed wording.

Alan

At 24/07/2014 04:44 AM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
>Alan (as well as James and others who have contributed to this and related
>threads),
>
>I think you have captured it very well in asking what exactly is being
>sought by the NGPC and, particularly, are there compromises which may be
>acceptable that we are not aware of.
>
>It is a fair point to ask about the communications and I assure you that
>Thomas and myself have worked behind the scenes.
>The challenge is that we have got clear indications of what might be
>acceptable, certainly in so far as the IGOs are concerned i.e. a
>notification service, but this has not been provided in writing or in a
>meeting with a representative or representatives of the NGPC so the Council
>does not have the benefit of this information.
>Perhaps as a consequence but in any event and, as you pointed out in your
>mail of 15 July, the text of the proposed policy wording appears to offer
>more (than the minimum requested) in the case of the IGOs and less in the
>case of the RCRC.
>
>Therefore, it seems to me that before we invoke a procedure that has some
>contention, we need to be as sure as we absolutely can be that we are
>invoking the procedure to deal with exactly what is being requested / may
>produce a satisfactory outcome.
>
>Hence the thinking along the lines Thomas has suggested i.e. as follows:
>
>1. Let's make sure we are clear on and comfortable with how we invoke the
>procedure
>(Personally I found Mary's briefing note of very helpful in this regard).
>
>2. Let's seek to get absolute (or as near as we can) clarity on what the
>NGPC is thinking via written or attended meeting input.
>
>Then, hopefully, we can somewhat smoothly put at least this aspect of this
>very time-consuming process behind us.
>
>Jonathan
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca]
>Sent: 23 July 2014 19:42
>To: Thomas Rickert; GNSO Council List
>Subject: Re: [council] IGO/RC motion
>
>
>Thanks for the heads up Thomas.
>
>That unfortunately adds another month to the process. Is there really no way
>to get clarification of what they meant outside of a Council meeting? This
>does not speak well to our communications skills.
>
>Alan
>
>At 23/07/2014 01:24 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
> >All,
> >in my previous e-mail on this subject, I mentioned that Chris will join
> >the upcoming GNSO Council call. We have now spotted that I invited him
> >for the 25th and not the 24th (my bad - I took the June date from the
> >GNSO master calendar instead of the July date) and Chris is in a plane
> >at that time. I am happy to report that the NGPC willing to provide us
> >with information.
> >However, such information will not be with us before the call.
> >
> >In my view, we have two topics to discuss, which are
> >
> >- getting a better understanding and clarity on how to invoke a
> >procedure that the Council has never invoked before and
> >- the substance of the motion itself.
> >
> >Having discussed this with Jonathan, I would like to ask that we
> >discuss the procedural issue during the call. We might also discuss the
> >substance of the motion, but I would like to let you know that I will
> >likely withdraw the motion during the meeting pending further
> >clarification.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Thomas
> >
> >Am 19.07.2014 um 20:59 schrieb Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de>:
> >
> > >
> > > All,
> > > in the light of the discussions on the list,
> > I have asked Chris Disspain to join the upcoming Council call and he
> > accepted the invitation.
> > >
> > > I am sure that this will help us understand
> > better what the NGPC's thinking is so we can take this into account
> > when discussing the motion. I suggest to get back to the amendments
> > that were proposed once we have heard Chris.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Thomas
> > >
> > > =============
> > > thomas-rickert.tel
> > > +49.228.74.898.0
> > >
> > >> Am 17.07.2014 um 11:37 schrieb Volker
> > Greimann <vgreimann at key-Systems.net>:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I support the suggestions James made.
> > >>
> > >> V.
> > >>
> > >> Am 16.07.2014 19:14, schrieb James M. Bladel:
> > >>> 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 considerÐ.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
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
> > >>
> > >> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
> > >>
> > >> Volker A. Greimann
> > >> - Rechtsabteilung -
> > >>
> > >> Key-Systems GmbH
> > >> Im Oberen Werk 1
> > >> 66386 St. Ingbert
> > >> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> > >> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> > >> Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
> > >>
> > >> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
> > >> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
> > >>
> > >> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
> > >> www.facebook.com/KeySystems
> > >> www.twitter.com/key_systems
> > >>
> > >> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
> > >> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.:
> > >> DE211006534
> > >>
> > >> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
> > >> www.keydrive.lu
> > >>
> > >> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich
> > und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt.
> > Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte
> > durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für
> > Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder
> > telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
> > >>
> > >> --------------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> Should you have any further questions,
> > please do not hesitate to contact us.
> > >>
> > >> Best regards,
> > >>
> > >> Volker A. Greimann
> > >> - legal department -
> > >>
> > >> Key-Systems GmbH
> > >> Im Oberen Werk 1
> > >> 66386 St. Ingbert
> > >> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> > >> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> > >> Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
> > >>
> > >> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
> > >> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
> > >>
> > >> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan
> > community on Facebook and stay updated:
> > >> www.facebook.com/KeySystems
> > >> www.twitter.com/key_systems
> > >>
> > >> CEO: Alexander Siffrin
> > >> Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
> > >>
> > >> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
> > >> www.keydrive.lu
> > >>
> > >> This e-mail and its attachments is intended
> > only for the person to whom it is addressed.
> > Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email.
> > You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail.
> > If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail,
> > kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us
> > by telephone.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >





More information about the council mailing list