[NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Updated Motion on the CCWG-IG

[Matthew Shears]

This looks good - thanks Rafik.


On 24/08/2017 00:50, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> here the response from Keith. I discussed with him regarding the 
> amendments and I am ok with the changes. the new version is an 
> acceptable one.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Drazek, Keith via council* <council at gnso.icann.org 
> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
> Date: 2017-08-23 17:18 GMT+09:00
> Subject: [council] Updated Motion on the CCWG-IG
> To: "council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>" 
> <council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> To prepare for our vote on the CCWG-IG motion this Thursday, here’s 
> where we stand.
>
> I’d like to thank both Rafik and Wolf-Ulrich for their input last 
> week.  Rafik and I exchanged emails again this week and I believe we 
> are in sync.
>
> As the maker of the motion:
>
>  1. I accept the proposed change of the withdrawal deadline from ICANN
>     60 to ICANN 61.
>  2. I agree that we need some additional clarity about the expected
>     timeline leading up to ICANN 61, so the transition can be as
>     seamless as possible. I suggest we target a GNSO Council meeting
>     mid-way between ICANN 60 and ICANN 61 as the opportunity for the
>     GNSO Council to review the proposed replacement structure. I’m
>     also support acknowledging further that the GNSO Council expects a
>     replacement to be created by ICANN 61.
>  3. With the extension, ICANN 61 needs to be the clear date for
>     withdrawal. If we leave wiggle room in the motion, then the work
>     of finding a replacement will not have the urgency or attention it
>     requires. We are extending the date to allow for the necessary
>     work, but I think that new date needs to be firm. We have all seen
>     how, at ICANN, “work fills the time and space provided.” We need
>     to avoid further slippage and set clear expectations for ourselves
>     and for the other Chartering Organizations.
>
> As such, I’ve attached updated motion language that I believe 
> addresses the points raised to date.
>
> James, as the seconder of the motion, do you concur or have any concerns?
>
> Regards,
>
> Keith
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council 
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council>
>
>
>
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
> 	Virus-free. www.avg.com 
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>
>
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-- 


Matthew Shears
matthew at intpolicy.com
+447712472987
Skype:mshears

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170824/47b6c8ba/attachment.htm>