Thanks Marika .. and sincere apologies to all for not replying earlier to quite a few message, I was disconnected from my email for the past 24 hrs .. Happy to be back online !! Kind Regards --Manal From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mason Cole Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 9:11 PM To: Amr Elsadr Cc: gac-gnso-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Preliminary Recommendations of GAC-GNSO CG onIssue Scoping .. Thanks Marika. MC On Jan 26, 2015, at 9:08 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: Hi, That sounds good to me. Thanks. Amr On Jan 26, 2015, at 5:50 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote: Hi Amr, I don't think anything would prevent the GAC to submit the outcome of the quick look mechanism committee to the public comment forum as well, but I think the reason why it was suggested that it would also go via the GNSO Liaison, is to follow the original path of communication as the GNSO liaison / GNSO Secretariat also informs the GAC when an Issue Report has been requested. But if there are no objections, maybe I could add "and/or submitted to the public comment forum" so it also leaves this other avenue open and maybe this is an issue on which additional input can be sought during the discussions in Singapore? Best regards, Marika From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Date: Monday 26 January 2015 16:22 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: "gac-gnso-cg@icann.org" <gac-gnso-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Preliminary Recommendations of GAC-GNSO CG on Issue Scoping .. Hi, Apologies for cutting it so close to the deadline, but I do have a question regarding preliminary recommendation #6. I'd be happy for an on-list answer, and certainly no need to have a call tomorrow on my account (although I am available for a call if so agreed). Is there a reason why we are recommending that communication of the outcome of the Quick Look Mechanism Committee (QLMC) be done via the GAC secretariat -> GNSO Council Liaison to the GAC -> policy staff. In the absence of any complications during the GAC deliberations, the outcome of the QLMC is meant to be ready by day 85 of the process, and can be submitted using the public comment forum as all inputs to preliminary issue reports are done. Wouldn't it be simpler, more transparent as well as in-line with existing GNSO processes to do this, or is there something I'm missing? Thanks. Amr On Jan 22, 2015, at 6:57 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote: Dear All, Following conversations with Manal and Jonathan, we'll keep the next CG meeting in the calendar for Tuesday 27 January at 14.00 UTC for now. However, in order to determine whether there is a need for this call, you are encouraged to submit any comments, questions and/or edits you may have on the attached document to the mailing list by Monday 26 January at 17.00 UTC at the latest. If no input is received, there may not be a need for the meeting as the document would be considered ready for circulation to the GAC and GNSO as is. Further preparations for Singapore could then continue via the mailing list. We intend to send a notice to the list shortly after 17.00 UTC on Monday to confirm whether or not we'll go ahead with the meeting. Best regards, Marika From: "manal@tra.gov.eg <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> " <manal@tra.gov.eg <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> > Date: Friday 16 January 2015 00:16 To: "gac-gnso-cg@icann.org <mailto:gac-gnso-cg@icann.org> " <gac-gnso-cg@icann.org <mailto:gac-gnso-cg@icann.org> > Subject: [Gac-gnso-cg] Preliminary Recommendations of GAC-GNSO CG on Issue Scoping .. Dear All, Following the last call, Marika has helpfully compiled the attached first draft of a possible report of recommendations to the GAC and GNSO concerning early engagement in the GNSO PDP .. In order to trigger input both from the CG as well as the GAC & GNSO, discussion to date is now turned into a number of preliminary recommendations and questions .. I believe on the last call it was suggested that it is more likely to get responses to concrete proposals than providing open ended questions .. The document now includes: - Explanatory cover note - Concrete recommendations by the CG for a proposed mechanism - Questions to ensure GAC and GNSO colleagues are part of the decision on a final mechanism - Text description of the suggested steps, in a table format - Illustrative diagram of the suggested steps, in the form of a flow chart With respect to our next meeting, we have received a few apologies due to the CCWG-Accountability F2F meeting in Frankfurt, and would hence suggest re-scheduling to January 27th .. .. Appreciate receiving your feedback / comments on the attached draft as well as confirming your availability for the next call on Tues. Jan. 27th .. Kind Regards --Manal <GAC GNSO CG - Preliminary Recommendations - Issue Scoping - 15 January ....docx>_______________________________________________ Gac-gnso-cg mailing list Gac-gnso-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac-gnso-cg_______________________ ________________________ Gac-gnso-cg mailing list Gac-gnso-cg@icann.org <mailto:Gac-gnso-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac-gnso-cg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac-gnso-cg> _______________________________________________ Gac-gnso-cg mailing list Gac-gnso-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac-gnso-cg Mason Cole VP Communications & Industry Relations Donuts Inc. .................................... ...... ...... mason@donuts.co Ofc +1 503 908 7623 Cell +1 503 407 2555