[Gac-gnso-cg] Preliminary Recommendations of GAC-GNSO CG onIssue Scoping ..

Tue Jan 27 11:40:47 UTC 2015

Thanks Marika .. and sincere apologies to all for not replying earlier
to quite a few message, I was disconnected from my email for the past 24
hrs ..

Happy to be back online !! 

Kind Regards

--Manal

From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mason Cole
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 9:11 PM
To: Amr Elsadr
Cc: gac-gnso-cg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Preliminary Recommendations of GAC-GNSO CG
onIssue Scoping ..

Thanks Marika.

MC

On Jan 26, 2015, at 9:08 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:

Hi,

That sounds good to me.

Thanks.

Amr

On Jan 26, 2015, at 5:50 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
wrote:

Hi Amr,

I don't think anything would prevent the GAC to submit the outcome of
the quick look mechanism committee to the public comment forum as well,
but I think the reason why it was suggested that it would also go via
the GNSO Liaison, is to follow the original path of communication as the
GNSO liaison / GNSO Secretariat also informs the GAC when an Issue
Report has been requested. But if there are no objections, maybe I could
add "and/or submitted to the public comment forum" so it also leaves
this other avenue open and maybe this is an issue on which additional
input can be sought during the discussions in Singapore?

Best regards,

Marika

From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
Date: Monday 26 January 2015 16:22
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
Cc: "gac-gnso-cg at icann.org" <gac-gnso-cg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Preliminary Recommendations of GAC-GNSO CG on
Issue Scoping ..

Hi,

Apologies for cutting it so close to the deadline, but I do have a
question regarding preliminary recommendation #6. I'd be happy for an
on-list answer, and certainly no need to have a call tomorrow on my
account (although I am available for a call if so agreed).

Is there a reason why we are recommending that communication of the
outcome of the Quick Look Mechanism Committee (QLMC) be done via the GAC
secretariat -> GNSO Council Liaison to the GAC -> policy staff. In the
absence of any complications during the GAC deliberations, the outcome
of the QLMC is meant to be ready by day 85 of the process, and can be
submitted using the public comment forum as all inputs to preliminary
issue reports are done.

Wouldn't it be simpler, more transparent as well as in-line with
existing GNSO processes to do this, or is there something I'm missing?

Thanks.

Amr

On Jan 22, 2015, at 6:57 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
wrote:

Dear All,

Following conversations with Manal and Jonathan, we'll keep the next CG
meeting in the calendar for Tuesday 27 January at 14.00 UTC for now.
However, in order to determine whether there is a need for this call,
you are encouraged to submit any comments, questions and/or edits you
may have on the attached document to the mailing list by Monday 26
January at 17.00 UTC at the latest. If no input is received, there may
not be a need for the meeting as the document would be considered ready
for circulation to the GAC and GNSO as is. Further preparations for
Singapore could then continue via the mailing list. 

We intend to send a notice to the list shortly after 17.00 UTC on Monday
to confirm whether or not we'll go ahead with the meeting.

Best regards,

Marika

From: "manal at tra.gov.eg <mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg> " <manal at tra.gov.eg
<mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg> >
Date: Friday 16 January 2015 00:16
To: "gac-gnso-cg at icann.org <mailto:gac-gnso-cg at icann.org> "
<gac-gnso-cg at icann.org <mailto:gac-gnso-cg at icann.org> >
Subject: [Gac-gnso-cg] Preliminary Recommendations of GAC-GNSO CG on
Issue Scoping ..

Dear All,

Following the last call, Marika has helpfully compiled the attached
first draft of a possible report of recommendations to the GAC and GNSO
concerning early engagement in the GNSO PDP .. In order to trigger input
both from the CG as well as the GAC & GNSO, discussion to date is now
turned into a number of preliminary recommendations and questions .. I
believe on the last call it was suggested that it is more likely to get
responses to concrete proposals than providing open ended questions ..
The document now includes:

-          Explanatory cover note

-          Concrete recommendations by the CG for a proposed mechanism

-          Questions to ensure GAC and GNSO colleagues are part of the
decision on a final mechanism

-          Text description of the suggested steps, in a table format

-          Illustrative diagram of the suggested steps, in the form of a
flow chart

With respect to our next meeting, we have received a few apologies due
to the CCWG-Accountability F2F meeting in Frankfurt, and would hence
suggest re-scheduling to January 27th .. ..

Appreciate receiving your feedback / comments on the attached draft as
well as confirming your availability for the next call on Tues. Jan.
27th ..

Kind Regards

--Manal

<GAC  GNSO CG - Preliminary Recommendations - Issue Scoping - 15 January
....docx>_______________________________________________
Gac-gnso-cg mailing list
Gac-gnso-cg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac-gnso-cg_______________________
________________________
Gac-gnso-cg mailing list
Gac-gnso-cg at icann.org <mailto:Gac-gnso-cg at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac-gnso-cg
<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac-gnso-cg> 

_______________________________________________
Gac-gnso-cg mailing list
Gac-gnso-cg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac-gnso-cg

Mason Cole 

VP Communications & Industry Relations

Donuts Inc.

....................................

......

......

mason at donuts.co

Ofc +1 503 908 7623

Cell +1 503 407 2555

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gac-gnso-cg/attachments/20150127/e581bca1/attachment-0001.html>