[Gac-gnso-cg] Charter v.5 -- incorporating revisions from last week - review for possible final approval on the next call

[Jonathan Robinson]

Thanks Mikey,

 

This seems to me to be good work and, hopefully, in a position to be now
agreed by our group and then shared more broadly.

 

A couple of interventions, the lateness of which I apologise in advance for.
That said, I do not anticipate that they are material.

 

As follows:

 

1.       The larger or longer term implication is that ICANN's PDPs fail to
take government public policy concerns into sufficient account at an early
stage so they can be incorporated into the proposals that are forwarded to
the Board for approval.

2.	Ultimately more efficient PDPs

 

Also when it comes to the following point, how certain are we of the
following?

 

We're now at a point where there is broader awareness that some GNSO
proposals that have been approved by the Board contained concepts that were
inconsistent with existing laws, treaties, etc.  A good example of this is
the Public Order and Morality proposals contained in the original GNSO new
gTLD recommendations, which were unworkable 

 

a)      Could we substitute "were inconsistent" "may be inconsistent" .  To
me it seems that we capture the principle without being potentially being
provocative.

b)      Similarly, how certain are we of the fact that the proposals were
unworkable?  If that's established and universally agreed (I do not know)
then OK.  If not, perhaps we are better off stripping out the example.

 

Apologies to all again for coming in so late on this.  These points struck
me on final proofing of you v. 5 draft.

 

 

Jonathan

From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org]
On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: 26 January 2014 16:18
To: GAC-GNSO-CG at icann.org
Subject: [Gac-gnso-cg] Charter v.5 -- incorporating revisions from last week
- review for possible final approval on the next call

 

hi all,

 

i've attached draft Charter v.5 - which folds in the comments i saw on the
list.  

 

i've chosen to include the email-thread about Mark's suggestions because
that was a pretty substantial conversation and i thought you might find it
helpful to have it for reference.

 

do note that i ever so slightly modified Mark's suggestion.  partly by where
i placed it in the existing language, partly in breaking it into two
paragraphs, and partly by changing the first sentence.  *I* don't think i've
done any damage with my changes, but you should all look closely to see if
you agree.  :-)

 

mikey

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gac-gnso-cg/attachments/20140127/9e2a79d8/attachment.html>