All, this is a gentle reminder to provide me with preliminary feedback. The motions and documents deadline is approaching rapidly and I have only received one response from the registrars so far. Also, I have reached out to Marilyn Cade (CBUC), Tony Holmes (ISPC), Kristina Rosette (IPC), Robin Gross (NCUC), Bruce Tonkin (Registrars) and Ken Stubbs (Registries) as they were listed in the final report of the PDP to cover their respective groups and since they hopefully have first-hand information on the discussions at the time. More people such as Avri, Bret and Alan are still here - please to chime in and respond. Thanks and kind regards, Thomas Anfang der weitergeleiteten Nachricht:
Von: Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> Betreff: Aw: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question Datum: 22. April 2014 14:40:58 MESZ An: jrobinson@afilias.info Kopie: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>
All, thanks to Jonathan for putting together and sending out the below message.
I am more than happy to assist with making sure we get an answer prepared in time.
Can I ask Councillors to get back to me offlist (in order not to swamp the list) with a status of the discussions with your respective groups? Certainly, one response per group is sufficient.
If there is anything I can help with to facilitate your discussions, please let me know.
The earlier I am provided with information on what direction your answers will take, the sooner I will be able to draft a motion and a letter to the NGPC for your review.
Thanks, Thomas
Am 10.04.2014 um 19:10 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info>:
All,
Following on from previous dialogue and the Council meeting today, it seems to me that the way forward is to focus as closely as possible on the question being asked and to make every attempt to respond in a timely and effective manner.
This means that, assuming it is required, a motion to be voted on needs to be submitted to the Council by 28 April for consideration at the 8 May 2014 meeting.
We are being asked (full letter attached for reference) to
1. … advise ICANN as to whether the GNSO Council believes that this additional provision is inconsistent with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19 on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains; or 2. advise ICANN that the GNSO Council needs additional time for review, including an explanation as to why additional time is required.
I believe that the question to take to your respective stakeholder groups / constituencies is therefore:
Is this additional provision inconsistent with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19? It will be helpful to have as clear as possible an answer as soon as possible along the following lines:
· No. It is not inconsistent (… with the letter and intent …). and · Possibly, an explanation as to why it is not inconsistent. and · Are there any other qualifying points that the Council should make in its response to the NGPC?
OR
· Yes. It is inconsistent ( … with the letter and intent … ). and · Possibly, an explanation as to why it is inconsistent. and · Is there a process by which the Council could assist the NGPC in resolving this issue and in what time frame?
Please can you all act as quickly as possible to provide an answer to the above. The timing is very tight.
We already have an indication of where the BC & the IPC stand on this i.e. no, it is not inconsistent.
Someone will need to lead on drafting a motion (for submission to the Council on or before 28 April) and an associated letter to the NGPC. Given the time constraints, this should probably take place in parallel with the consultation work. Can we please have a volunteer to lead this effort and ensure it gets done? Thomas?
I have tried to simplify and focus the problem here in the interest of providing a representative, timely and effective response. I trust that in doing so I have not discounted any material points in the discussion to date. Please correct me if I have.
Jonathan