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

[farzaneh badii]

Observer - I agree. Thanks Rafik for getting this done. It was time
consuming and hard to fight for.

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 8:42 AM Matthew Shears <matthew at intpolicy.com>
wrote:

> 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>
> Date: 2017-08-23 17:18 GMT+09:00
> Subject: [council] Updated Motion on the CCWG-IG
> To: "council at gnso.icann.org" <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
> 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>
> <#m_-2938874596675133609_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
> --
>
>
> Matthew Shearsmatthew at intpolicy.com
> +447712472987Skype:mshears
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
-- 
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170824/c0eaca59/attachment.htm>