Agreed ... CLO On 07/06/2011, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@wilmerhale.com> wrote:
I would like to second Keith's recommendation regarding accommodating the GAC request. GAC participation is critical to the legitimacy of our work. I don't propose that we adopt a GAC time table - merely saying that we need to agree with the GAC participants regarding our mutual expectations on this.
J. Beckwith Burr | WilmerHale 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20006 USA +1 202 663 6695 (t) +1 202 663 6363 (f) becky.burr@wilmerhale.com
Please consider the environment before printing this email. _____
This email message and any attachments are being sent by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, are confidential, and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately--by replying to this message or by sending an email to postmaster@wilmerhale.com--and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Thank you.
For more information about WilmerHale, please visit us at www.wilmerhale.com. -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Keith Davidson Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 8:27 AM To: ccNSO Council Subject: [ccnso-council] Keith Davidson Updates for call
Hi all,
Re FOIWG:
1. The updated charter for this WG is submitted for Council approval. The initial charter included options for the GAC to select its method of
engagement with this WG (observers, full participation etc). The GAC has
elected to be full participants in the WG, so the revision to the charter encapsulates this, and deletes the alternatives.
2. The Work Plan and Time Line has been agreed by the WG after 2 conference calls and on list discussion.
3. The GAC have asked us to consider not adopting the Work Plan until Singapore, until the full GAC have had an opportunity for input. My view
is we should agree, but that we will need to clarify the decision making
process with the GAC in Singapore, if we are to ensure our work will continue in step with the time line
4. The first draft of the Terminology topic for the WG has been circulated to WG members, and will be the topic of focus for the 3 hour meeting of the WG in Singapore
5. There has been some interesting discussion on the WG list and last conference call, relating primarily to pre-RFC1591 delegations, and their status regarding "ownership" (vs custodianship). I believe the discussion is out of scope for the WG to consider, but nonetheless of extreme interest to the topic of delegations and redelegations of ccTLDs. I therefore suggest that the ccNSO Council enable a small ad-hoc
group for formulate a draft letter from the ccNSO to ICANN seeking legal
advice on this issue, but I think too this will need discussion with the
ccNSO membership and their endorsement before we could send any such letter. The ad-hoc group could work towards a presentation to ccNSO members at the Senegal ICANN meeting.
Re GAC / ccNSO Liaison
There has been contact between GAC and the ccNSO Liaison folks, thanks to Martin Boyle for being instrumental in this, and we have a draft agenda for the joint meeting in Singapore, specifically:
1. Overview of the ccNSO and its workplan (Lesley Cowley)
2. Framework of Interpretation WG - Scope, Membership and Workplan (Keith Davidson and Bernie Turcotte)
3. ccNSO Perspectives on ICANN operating plan & budget and the security & stability strategy (Byron Holland)
4. Names of Countries and Territories Study Group Update (Not sure who???)
5. (time permitting) Impact of new Territory (Geo) gTLDs on ccTLDs (Martin Boyle)
Can ccNSO Council confirm the lead participants for each of these topics
on todays call?
Cheers
Keith
-- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)