[council] Motion on next steps in relation to the charter for the CCWG-IG

[Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben]

Michele and all,

very simple: there is just a target set in Res. 3, and Res. 4 imposes an 
automatic withdrawal independent from whether the target has been 
achieved or not. I think the dependency between both should be phrased 
more clear.

Bet regards

Wolf-Ulrich


Am 14.07.2017 um 10:47 schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight:
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
> Sorry, but which part of the motion is causing this concern for you? I 
> honestly can’t see it.
>
> Regards
>
>
> Michele
>
> --
>
> Mr Michele Neylon
>
> Blacknight Solutions
>
> Hosting, Colocation & Domains
>
> https://www.blacknight.com/
>
> http://blacknight.blog/
>
> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
>
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>
> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
>
> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
>
> -------------------------------
>
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business 
> Park,Sleaty
>
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
>
> *From: *<council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of 
> "Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
> *Date: *Friday 14 July 2017 at 00:03
> *To: *"council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Subject: *[council] Motion on next steps in relation to the charter 
> for the CCWG-IG
>
> All,
>
> following the discussion at the council call today I think Res. 3 and 
> 4 are lacking consistency with respect to the withdrawal from the 
> present structure and a (potential and not impossible) GNSO engagement 
> in the new structure. The GNSO should definitely not take any step 
> towards withdrawal before the future model is clear. I'd like to 
> encourage the proponents of the motion to take this into consideration 
> when reintroducing the deferred motion.
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>
> _Res. from the motion_
>
> 3. The GNSO Council requests that members of the CCWG-IG and others 
> interested parties come together to explore a framework / model that 
> more fully addresses the concerns that have been expressed by the GNSO 
> Council, and submit this framework / model to the GNSO Council for its 
> consideration by ICANN60.
>
> 4. To facilitate the work as requested under Resolved clause #3, 
> allowing for a reasonable time to coordinate with other SOs and ACs to 
> develop a new structure, and to ensure there is no gap between the 
> retirement of the CCWG-IC and the establishment of its successor 
> group, the GNSO Council shall withdraw as a Chartering Organization 
> from the CCWG-IG effective at the conclusion of ICANN 60 in Abu Dhabi.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20170714/33994642/attachment.html>