[Gnso-igo-ingo] ACTION REQUIRED - Reconvened WG and ContinuedConsensus Call on Proposed Recommendations

Thu Jun 14 12:40:55 UTC 2018

Good input Heather.  Regarding the next to last bullet ("The Reconvened WG also understands that the GAC is the authoritative channel for any proposed changes that are to be made to the reservation list."), I am not sure that the GAC as an Advisory body can be an authoritative channel.  I think it might be better to change that sentence to something like the following: “The Reconvened WG also understands that the GAC is an important channel for any proposed changes that are to be made to the reservation list.”

Chuck

From: Gnso-igo-ingo <gnso-igo-ingo-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Heather Forrest
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 12:44 AM
To: christopher.lamb17 at gmail.com
Cc: gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] ACTION REQUIRED - Reconvened WG and ContinuedConsensus Call on Proposed Recommendations

Thanks very much, Berry, for getting the WG to this stage.

My input below:

*	I agree with the consensus designations as stated.
*	I have no objection to Chuck's proposal that the comment period be extended; for consistency and practicality's sake this is sensible in my view.
*	In the final paragraph on page 3: "It is important to note that the scope of the work of this Reconvened WG did not extend..." I suggest adding for absolute clarity: "It is important to note that the scope of the work of this Reconvened WG did not, per the GNSO Council motion of [DATE], extend".... 
*	I envision a situation where it is unclear whether Recommendation 6 applies on its own, or Recommendation 5 and 6 both apply. I have included this question as a comment in the document.
*	The intention and meaning of the following statement on page 13 isn't clear to me: "The Reconvened WG also understands that the GAC is the authoritative channel for any proposed changes that are to be made to the reservation list."
*	I have suggested some minor edits in the document attached, mainly for clarity.

Best wishes to all,

Heather 

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 11:18 AM, <christopher.lamb17 at gmail.com <mailto:christopher.lamb17 at gmail.com> > wrote:

Dear Berry,

As you know from an earlier e-mail to you and Stephane I’m comfortable but I had a few questions about National Societies yet to enter the Movement but on the membership path which I hope will be taken into account.

Best wishes

Chris

From: mail at berrycobb.com <mailto:mail at berrycobb.com>  

Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 13:09

To: gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org>  

Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo] ACTION REQUIRED - Reconvened WG and ContinuedConsensus Call on Proposed Recommendations

Hi All

Please find attached the proposed Initial Report of the Reconvened WG.  This is the full report that includes required sections of Executive Summary, Background, and Deliberations of the WG along with the proposed recommendations that were sent to the WG last week in preparation for that meeting.  Like prior versions of the draft recommendations, Thomas has maintained a preliminary consensus level of “full consensus” for the six recommendations.

The task for members as a part of the continued consensus call is to announce any objections to the currently assigned consensus level by 19 June 2018 at 23:59 UTC.  Absent any objections, the Initial report will be prepared for a 30-day public comment proceeding.  Thomas is prepared to have this extended to the normal 40 days upon presentation to the GNSO Council of the Reconvened WG’s status at ICANN62.

In addition to submission of objections, if any, members are also instructed to provide any feedback or proposed edits to this draft report.  Track changes are enabled.  You can make your suggested edits in the Word doc and return back to me for import into the master document.  Written suggestions are also welcome on the mailing list, and I can post the changes on your behalf in to the master.

Lastly, we still have two outstanding items to resolves as it relates to the variant principles and the definitive list.  Please send along your support or objection as well.

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo/2018-June/000156.html 

Reconvened WG’s Timeline:

07 June – complete 

Next meeting of the Reconvened WG (start of consensus call)

14 June – complete

Reconvened WG meeting not required

18-21 June

Start of Public Comment Period

23-28 June

ICANN62*

18 July

Close of Comment Period (30 days per Council resolution)**

19 July

Reconvened WG meeting to review comments and prepare Final Report

26 July

Reconvened WG meeting to review comments and prepare Final Report

28 July

Close of Comment Period (40 days per standard)

02 August

Reconvened WG meeting to review comments and prepare Final Report

06 August

GNSO Council’s Documents and Motion deadline / Send Final Report

16 August

GNSO Council meeting

* No planned session, but an update will be provided to the GNSO Council.

** Note that the Council resolution that kicked off this effort mentions a (30) day public comment period.  However, the standard is (40) days.  Thomas will ask the Council at ICANN62 whether an extension to 40 days is warranted.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you.

B

Berry A. Cobb

720.839.5735

mail at berrycobb.com <mailto:mail at berrycobb.com> 

@berrycobb

  _____  

_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo

_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo/attachments/20180614/92320591/attachment-0001.html>