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

[Mike O'Connor]

hi all,

let’s try to resolve these late-breaking refinements on the list if we can.  

does anybody have any objection to Jonathan’s points?  or anything else in the v.5 draft?  i’ll wait until tomorrow morning and then fold the results of that discussion into a draft for the call.

mikey

 
On Jan 27, 2014, at 6:06 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com> wrote:

> 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.
> 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
>  


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gac-gnso-cg/attachments/20140127/bf7f0522/attachment-0001.html>