Got it. Understood. Thanks Rosemary. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Friendly Amendments to CCI WG Motion and Charter (motion 7 on the motions page) From: Rosemary Sinclair <rosemary.sinclair@unsw.edu.au> Date: Thu, September 22, 2011 3:36 pm To: Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com> Cc: GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org> I'm OK with these amendments except re the Update ....we will be in a position to provide an Update (not a report) at Dakar So the amendment at Resolved 5 could be ...WG Update.....at Dakar..... Cheers Rosemary Rosemary Sinclair Director, External Relations Australian School of Business UNSW +61 413 734490 On 23/09/2011, at 2:53 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> wrote:

Rosemary and Wolf,

I appreciate the amendment to the CCI WG motion to delete the word "joint." I have a few other intended friendly amendments to the motion and the Charter to be sure there is no confusion or doubt that this is a GNSO chartered WG, which are always open to all interested parties regardless of SO/AC affiliation, and to address concerns regarding the timing of the report.

Friendly amendments to the motion:

1. Replace "of these SO/ACs" with "party" in the third/last Whereas.

2. Replace "at the ICANN Dakar Meeting in October, 2011" with "as soon after the ICANN Dakar Meeting as reasonably possible" in the fifth (second to last) Resolve. At this point in time it doesn't seem likely that this WG can form, select a chair, have substantive discussions, etc. and still produce a report by Dakar.

3. Strike the last Resolve entirely.

Friendly amendments to the Charter:

1. Title: change to "GNSO Working Group (WG) Charter."

2. Chartering Organization(s): change to "GNSO" only.

3. Deliverables & Timeframes: change "by the ICANN Dakar Meeting" to "as soon after the ICANN Dakar Meeting as reasonably possible."

4. Membership Criteria: change to "The CCI WG will be open to all interested parties."

5. Group Formation, Dependencies, & Dissolution: change to "This WG will be formed as a GNSO chartered Working Group."

Finally, just a comment. I guess it works, but it seems redundant to include excerpts from the GNSO WG Guidelines. IMO, charters should simply state that those Guidelines apply and go into detail only where it is proposing a departure from those guidelines with appropriate reasoning.

Thanks, Tim