[Gnso-bylaws-dt] A couple of questions

[Heather Forrest]

Thanks very much, Julie, for your reply, and also for circulating the
information gained from the ccNSO.

Farzi - as I see it, we have an opportunity in this week's call to sanity
check the items in green based on staff's review and our own thinking, and
against the ccNSO guidelines. The aim of this week's meeting is to confirm
the scope of our work (ie, what's in, and what's out) and hopefully work
out a timeline for completion.

Best wishes to all,

Heather

On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 1:13 AM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
wrote:

> Hi Farzaneh,
>
>
>
> Thank you very much for your helpful questions.  It is true that the
> sections highlighted in green in the document do not need any action and,
> thus, can be excluded.  Also, it may be in the case of the CSC/IFR Review
> overlap that no action is necessary.  Staff will research and confirm.
> Later today staff will send a revised document to contain only those
> sections for which DT guidance may be necessary.  Staff also will submit
> for review the deliverable per the action items from last week’s meeting:
>
>
>
>    1. Staff will get materials from ccNSO and provide a draft comparison
>    to the 6 identified areas where GNSO guidelines may be needed.  DUE: 06
>    February.
>
>
>
> Thanks again.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Julie
>
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>
>
>
> *From: *Gnso-bylaws-dt <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
> farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 12:36 AM
> *To: *"gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Gnso-bylaws-dt] A couple of questions
>
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> I am making myself ready for our next week meeting and had a couple of
> questions. Can't quite remember some parts of our discussion.
>
>
>
> It seems like the parts that are highlighted green in the document do not
> need any action from us and the ones highlighted in yellow do. If we are
> not going to discuss them at all, can we have a document that only lists
> the items that we need to discuss?
>
>
>
> Some of the yellow highlights say:
>
> The small group that will be looking at the CSC/IFR review overlap is
> requested to also propose a process and timeline with ccNSO and document in
> the GNSO Operating Procedures or as a separate document.
>
>
>
>
>
> Sorry if we discussed this but the items that relate to CSC/IFR Review
> overlap don't seem like to be within the mandate of our group and another
> small team working on it. Or are they within our mandate and are we
> supposed to discuss with the small team? If we should not do anything shall
> we remove them from the items we need to discuss?
>
>
>
>
>
> Best
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Farzaneh
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list
> Gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/attachments/20190212/3535af2f/attachment.html>