Wolf-Ulrich Sorry, but which part of the motion is causing this concern for you? I honestly can’t see it. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Date: Friday 14 July 2017 at 00:03 To: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Motion on next steps in relation to the charter for the CCWG-IG All, following the discussion at the council call today I think Res. 3 and 4 are lacking consistency with respect to the withdrawal from the present structure and a (potential and not impossible) GNSO engagement in the new structure. The GNSO should definitely not take any step towards withdrawal before the future model is clear. I'd like to encourage the proponents of the motion to take this into consideration when reintroducing the deferred motion. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Res. from the motion 3. The GNSO Council requests that members of the CCWG-IG and others interested parties come together to explore a framework / model that more fully addresses the concerns that have been expressed by the GNSO Council, and submit this framework / model to the GNSO Council for its consideration by ICANN60. 4. To facilitate the work as requested under Resolved clause #3, allowing for a reasonable time to coordinate with other SOs and ACs to develop a new structure, and to ensure there is no gap between the retirement of the CCWG-IC and the establishment of its successor group, the GNSO Council shall withdraw as a Chartering Organization from the CCWG-IG effective at the conclusion of ICANN 60 in Abu Dhabi.

Wolf-Ulrich I disagree. The way it is currently worded provides clear motivation to resolve the situation via a deadline or ultimatum. Removing that will mean we’ll probably still be discussing this in a year’s time and I honestly don’t think that’s a good use of our time. I’d prefer to see this situation resolved quickly and the current wording provides a clear incentive to get it done quickly. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: "Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Date: Friday 14 July 2017 at 14:40 To: Michele Neylon <michele@blacknight.com>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Motion on next steps in relation to the charter for the CCWG-IG Michele and all, very simple: there is just a target set in Res. 3, and Res. 4 imposes an automatic withdrawal independent from whether the target has been achieved or not. I think the dependency between both should be phrased more clear. Bet regards Wolf-Ulrich Am 14.07.2017 um 10:47 schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight: Wolf-Ulrich Sorry, but which part of the motion is causing this concern for you? I honestly can’t see it. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org><mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de><mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Date: Friday 14 July 2017 at 00:03 To: "council@gnso.icann.org"<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> <council@gnso.icann.org><mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Motion on next steps in relation to the charter for the CCWG-IG All, following the discussion at the council call today I think Res. 3 and 4 are lacking consistency with respect to the withdrawal from the present structure and a (potential and not impossible) GNSO engagement in the new structure. The GNSO should definitely not take any step towards withdrawal before the future model is clear. I'd like to encourage the proponents of the motion to take this into consideration when reintroducing the deferred motion. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Res. from the motion 3. The GNSO Council requests that members of the CCWG-IG and others interested parties come together to explore a framework / model that more fully addresses the concerns that have been expressed by the GNSO Council, and submit this framework / model to the GNSO Council for its consideration by ICANN60. 4. To facilitate the work as requested under Resolved clause #3, allowing for a reasonable time to coordinate with other SOs and ACs to develop a new structure, and to ensure there is no gap between the retirement of the CCWG-IC and the establishment of its successor group, the GNSO Council shall withdraw as a Chartering Organization from the CCWG-IG effective at the conclusion of ICANN 60 in Abu Dhabi.

Michele, I'm with you in keeping our work efficient and solving issues as quickly as possible. But the "coin" has two sides, which should look still nice after. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Am 14.07.2017 um 15:45 schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight:

Wolf-Ulrich

I disagree.

The way it is currently worded provides clear motivation to resolve the situation via a deadline or ultimatum. Removing that will mean we’ll probably still be discussing this in a year’s time and I honestly don’t think that’s a good use of our time.

I’d prefer to see this situation resolved quickly and the current wording provides a clear incentive to get it done quickly.

Regards

Michele

--

Mr Michele Neylon

Blacknight Solutions

Hosting, Colocation & Domains

https://www.blacknight.com/

http://blacknight.blog/

Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072

Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090

Personal blog: https://michele.blog/

Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/

-------------------------------

Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty

Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845

*From: *"Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> *Date: *Friday 14 July 2017 at 14:40 *To: *Michele Neylon <michele@blacknight.com>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [council] Motion on next steps in relation to the charter for the CCWG-IG

Michele and all,

very simple: there is just a target set in Res. 3, and Res. 4 imposes an automatic withdrawal independent from whether the target has been achieved or not. I think the dependency between both should be phrased more clear.

Bet regards

Wolf-Ulrich

Am 14.07.2017 um 10:47 schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight:

Wolf-Ulrich

Sorry, but which part of the motion is causing this concern for you? I honestly can’t see it.

Regards

Michele

--

Mr Michele Neylon

Blacknight Solutions

Hosting, Colocation & Domains

https://www.blacknight.com/

http://blacknight.blog/

Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072

Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090

Personal blog: https://michele.blog/

Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/

-------------------------------

Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty

Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845

*From: *<council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> <mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> *Date: *Friday 14 July 2017 at 00:03 *To: *"council@gnso.icann.org" <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> <council@gnso.icann.org> <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject: *[council] Motion on next steps in relation to the charter for the CCWG-IG

All,

following the discussion at the council call today I think Res. 3 and 4 are lacking consistency with respect to the withdrawal from the present structure and a (potential and not impossible) GNSO engagement in the new structure. The GNSO should definitely not take any step towards withdrawal before the future model is clear. I'd like to encourage the proponents of the motion to take this into consideration when reintroducing the deferred motion.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

_Res. from the motion_

3. The GNSO Council requests that members of the CCWG-IG and others interested parties come together to explore a framework / model that more fully addresses the concerns that have been expressed by the GNSO Council, and submit this framework / model to the GNSO Council for its consideration by ICANN60.

4. To facilitate the work as requested under Resolved clause #3, allowing for a reasonable time to coordinate with other SOs and ACs to develop a new structure, and to ensure there is no gap between the retirement of the CCWG-IC and the establishment of its successor group, the GNSO Council shall withdraw as a Chartering Organization from the CCWG-IG effective at the conclusion of ICANN 60 in Abu Dhabi.