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"
<manal@tra.gov.eg>
Date: Friday 16 January
2015 00:16
To: "gac-gnso-cg@icann.org"
<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
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.
………………………………
……
……
Ofc +1 503 908 7623
Cell +1 503 407 2555