Gabi, Bart, Paulos
I’m happy with Bart’s version –
it’s clear enough now.
Regards,
Vika Mpisane
.za Domain Name Authority
Tel: +27 11 275 0082
From:
owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gabriella Schittek
Sent: 29 July 2009 01:48 PM
To: Bart Boswinkel;
paulos@sdnp.org.mw; ccnso-council@icann.org
Subject: Re: [ccnso-council]
DRDWG-9? - Re: July Update from ICANN's Policy Department Posted
If you’re all happy with
this formulation, I will go ahead and change it. Let me know if you have any
problems with it by this Friday, 31st August.
Many thanks,
Gabi
On 7/29/09 1:43 PM, "Bart Boswinkel" <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> wrote:
Gabi, Paulos,
I think it should read:
The chair of the working group shall exercise reasonable discretion
as to whether the charter does provide guidance and/or
the impact of the charter is workable with respect to conduct the business of
the
working group
Kind regards,
BArt
________________________________________
From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org
[owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On
Behalf Of Gabriella Schittek [gabriella.schittek@icann.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:22 AM
To: paulos@sdnp.org.mw; ccnso-council@icann.org
Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] DRDWG-9? - Re: July Update from ICANN's Policy
Department Posted
Paulos,
I checked with the last version of the Charter which was sent to me (on the 5th
June) and the text in article 9 is identical to the one posted online.
Reading the text, I think that an “s” might be missing behind the
word “question”. If you read it like “questions” the
text might make more sense?
Gabi
On 7/29/09 12:04 PM, "Dr Paulos Nyirenda" <paulos@sdnp.org.mw> wrote:
Gabi,
It appears that the charter for the ccNSO Delegation & Redelegation
Working Group has errors on article 9 which as posted at
http://www.ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/drdwg.htm
reads as follows:
"9. Omission in or unreasonable impact of Charter
The chair of the working group shall exercise reasonable discretion
with respect to
question as to which this charter does not provide guidance and/or
the impact of the
charter is unworkable with respect to the conduct of business of the
working group."
This does not seem to make a lot of sense. Could you please check
with the original text to see if some text was missed in making this
post to the ccNSO website?
Regards,
Paulos
======================
Dr Paulos B Nyirenda
.mw ccTLD
http://www.registrar.mw
On 29 Jul 2009 at 0:06, Gabriella Schittek wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> The latest update from ICANN’s Policy Department is now available at
> http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-jul09-en.htm#1
>
> The update is also available in all six official UN languages (English,
> Spanish, French, Arabic, Simplified Chinese, Russian).
>
>
> Issues 2 -6 are ccTLD related:
>
> 2) ccNSO Working Group Eyes DNS Emergency Response Planning - a new ccNSO
> ad-hoc working group on Emergency Response Planning has been formed.
>
> 3)
> Strategic Planning Workshop held during the ccNSO meeting in
>
> 4) ccNSO, GNSO Council Seek Consensus Approach on gTLD Issues - issues
with
> the timing of the launch of the new gTLD process and the IDN ccTLD Fast
> Track leads to the formation of a gNSO/ccNSO Working Group, with the goal
to
> get them resolved in a joint effort.
>
> 5) Members Named to Delegation and Redelegation Working Group - the
members
> of the Delegation and Redelegation Working Group were confirmed during the
> ccNSO Council meeting in
>
> 6) ccNSO Meetings Evaluation Conducted - an evaluation of the ccNSO
meeting
> in
>
> 7) Operators Asked to Participate in DNSSEC Survey - a new version of the
> DNSSEC survey (first conducted in 2007) has been launched. All ccTLD
> Operators are invited to participate.
>
> Another topic of interest may be:
>
> 11) Board Approves Geographic Regions Review Charter - the ICANN Board has
> approved the Charter of the Geographic Regions Review Working Group. The
> Working Group is determining whether the uses of ICANN’s Geographic
Regions
> (as currently defined) continue to meet the requirements of the relevant
> stakeholders and will submit proposals for community and Board
consideration
> relating to the current and future uses and definition of the ICANN
> Geographic Regions.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Gabi
>