[council] IGO INGO Final Issue Report & Motion for Council

Thomas Rickert rickert at anwaelte.de
Thu Jun 5 11:52:34 UTC 2014


Hi Avri,
thanks for your question. I will now speak at the GNSO WG Newcomer Session and get back to you after that. 

Best,
Thomas


Am 05.06.2014 um 12:55 schrieb Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> Does the Charter exist as a separate document, or is it only to be found
> as an annex to the final issues report?
> 
> Also has there been any in depth discussion in the council of the
> charter yet.  I don't recall it.
> 
> As you recall NCSG has varied concerns, often expressed, about the scope
> of addition of special protections beyond those that have been already
> been granted.  This concern translates into concern over the mandate in
> the charter to deal with anything that had been discussed during the
> IGO/INGO WG.  A lot was discussed. I am also not clear on the scope of
> identifiers that can be considered.  Obviously it goes beyond those
> already defined as excluded for second level, but I do not understand
> the permissible scope for this PDP, and I have spent a far bit of time
> bouncing around between the Final Report and the Final Issues report
> trying to figure that out.  For example I wasn't able to answer the
> simple question: Are acronyms in scope for considerations?  I am sure I
> am missed it, but I missed it.
> 
> So as we approach the vote I have to admit that I do not understand the
> scope, and this came full face the other day when I tried to explain it
> to an NCSG open policy meeting.  I thus also do not have a good view of
> the NSCG viewpoints on this except to understand that they run the
> entire gambit.  I  need to understand the scope better and may not be
> ready to vote at this point.
> 
> I should note that while I am personally inclined to support opening the
> UDRP and URS beyond business marks to support intergovernmental and
> civil society needs, some of the NCSG is much less inclined to do so.
> This makes it critical to understand the full scope.
> 
> Apologies if it is crystal clear to everyone else and I am just missing
> it.  Thomas, I expect it is all crystal clear to you, so I would
> appreciate some help in understanding the scope.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> avri
> 
> On 05-Jun-14 11:35, Thomas Rickert wrote:
>> All,
>> Jonathan has kindly proposed the two motions we will discuss later
>> today. I herewith second the motions. 
>> 
>> As you will recall, I have chaired the IGO/INGO PDP WG and would very
>> much like to encourage Councillors to submit questions there might be
>> relating to the motions to the Council list. This will enable me and
>> staff to have all information you might be asking ready prior or in the
>> call. 
>> 
>> Please note that the motions are a follow-up to the recommendation we
>> unanimously approved previously and in which we recommended this very
>> PDP should be conducted.
>> 
>> Thanks and kind regards,
>> Thomas
>> 
>> 
>> Am 27.05.2014 um 00:54 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info
>> <mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>>:
>> 
>>> All,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Please see attached for two proposed motions for the next council meeting.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Ordinarily, I expect that these would have come to you from Thomas
>>> Rickert as chair of the PDP WG that developed the recommendation for
>>> the Issue Report.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> However, since Thomas is currently on vacation, I have decided to
>>> propose the motions.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Jonathan
>>> 
>>> <Motion to Initiate Curative Rights PDP - 23 May 2014.docx><Motion for
>>> IGO INGO Curative Rights Charter Adoption - 25 May 2014.doc>
>> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20140605/c2095caf/signature.asc>


More information about the council mailing list