[council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report

[Lars Hoffmann]

Dear Councillors, 

Due to a mix-up by staff, Amr circulated a slightly older version of this
motion. With Amr¹s consent, the correct version has been uploaded to the
Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/lZRlAw and the final issue report can
be found here: 
http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-final-issue-11jan16-en.pdf

Many thanks and best wishes,
Lars





On 13/01/2016, 07:04, "owner-council at gnso.icann.org on behalf of Amr
Elsadr" <owner-council at gnso.icann.org on behalf of aelsadr at egyptig.org>
wrote:

>
>Hi,
>
>I agree that a formal vote is not absolutely needed at this stage, but I
>wonder whether or not a formal vote of the 3rd draft recommendations
>would be helpful to the CCWG. I imagine that it will draw a very clear
>picture of where the stakeholder groups/constituencies of one of the
>CCWG¹s chartering organisations stand on each of the recommendations.
>
>Although these positions have probably been communicated by the appointed
>members from the GNSO groups, my guess would be that the members of the
>CCWG may still find a Council vote helpful.
>
>Just a thought.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Amr
>
>> On Jan 13, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Wolf-Ulrich,
>> 
>>> Maybe tomorrow we could sort out and discuss the very last not yet
>>> agreeable recs. The formal vote could then be taken at a later stage ­
>>>maybe
>>> even at the council meeting next week.
>> 
>> I am not entirely sure why a formal vote is needed now, assuming
>> there will have to be one more, final(?) draft - surely what counts
>> is the vote on the *final* version. Or am I wrong in my assumptions?
>> 
>> 	Julf
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5091 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20160114/b267e0fd/smime.p7s>