[council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law

[Stephanie Perrin]

Thanks Marika, you are absolutely correct, I was just looking for an 
explicit option spelled out there.  And Yes James, happy to volunteer, 
wild horses couldn't keep me away....

cheers Stephanie


On 2016-10-07 12:48, Marika Konings wrote:
>
> Stephanie, please see scenario and consequences #2:
>
> //
>
> /The Council should specify why it is of the view that the proposed 
> modification is not consistent. Furthermore the Council could consider 
> whether//more work is required on the proposed modification to ensure 
> that it is consistent with the intent of the policy recommendations 
> (for example by reconstituting the IAG or forming a new group) or 
> whether the original policy recommendations are in need of review./
>
> //
>
> ‘Whether the original policy recommendations are in need of review’ 
> would imply a PDP.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marika
>
> *Marika Konings*
>
> Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet 
> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
> Email: marika.konings at icann.org <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>
>
> //
>
> /Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO/
>
> /Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses 
> <http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer 
> pages 
> <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers>./
>
> *From: *<owner-council at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin 
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> *Date: *Friday 7 October 2016 at 10:34
> *To: *"James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List 
> <council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts 
> with local law
>
> Thanks for this.  I see no mention of my motion, which basically 
> confirmed my position (and that of NCSG, whose submission missed the 
> deadline) that the policy was fundamentally flawed.  I recognize noone 
> wants another PDP but Council could also take the position that the 
> policy needs to be revisited, and request a charter.  Seems logical if 
> it has never been used in a decade.  Anyway, I would submit that such 
> a document should mention the fact that there were minority views in 
> the IAG that the policy itself has flaws which demand a fix.
>
> Stephanie Perrin
>
> On 2016-10-07 12:19, James M. Bladel wrote:
>
>     Councilors –
>
>     Having now considered --and withdrawn-- two separate motions on
>     this topic, it is clear that we need to regroup, reassess, and
>     consider our path(s) forward.
>
>     Per the discussion on our 30 SEP call, I would like to convene a
>     group of interested Councilors to kick off discussions and present
>     options. For context, please see the attached Overview document
>     prepared by Staff.  This summary is intended to provide
>     backgrounds, and kick start ideas for resolution, but by no means
>     is it meant to serve as an exhaustive list.
>
>     I’m hopeful this group can work together to reconcile the diverse
>     opinions on this issue, and come back to Council one or more
>     motions that have sufficient support to pass.
>
>     Thank you,
>
>     J.
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20161007/cbdfc675/attachment.html>