Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: REMINDER: Document and motion Deadline MONDAY, 6 April 2015 at 23:59 UTC for GNSO Council meeting 16 April 2015 at 11:00 UTC
Dear Avri and Anne, As Mary noted in a previous message since the SCI requests are currently on the Consent Agenda for the Council meeting no motions are required. If that should change today while the agenda is under review by the Council Chairs I'll provide motions that Avri can submit by today's deadline. However, there have been no objections since Friday to Jonathan's suggestion to include the SCI requests in the Consent Agenda. Best regards, Julie From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> Organization: Technicalities Reply-To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> Date: Friday, April 3, 2015 4:15 PM To: "<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: REMINDER: Document and motion Deadline MONDAY, 6 April 2015 at 23:59 UTC for GNSO Council meeting 16 April 2015 at 11:00 UTC > Dear Anne, > > On 03-Apr-15 15:46, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >> Thanks Mary. We look forward to the report as to the discussion that >> occurred on March 19. It appears to me that one of the issues raised in our >> report in the January meeting was dropped but that a voting threshold issue >> previously put on hold may have been picked up. Can you or Avri please >> advise by reply to all? > > The main part of the report can be had by reading the transcript from that > meeting. It is found at: > <http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-19mar15-en.pdf> > > I suggest that anytime you are curious about what happened in the council > meeting, you check out the transcript. It get posted rather quickly. If you > have an specific questions after reading the transcript, I will be happy to > answer if I know the answer, or else will find it. If the group have any > issue they want me to take the council, I am ready and waiting. And if I have > a subject on which I feel it is necessary to communicate to the group as the > liaison, I will do so. > > I have appended the appropriate section of the transcript below for your > convenience. > > As Mary said, they are working on the motions. > > In other words nothing to report. > > avri > > > page 53 >> So let¹s deal with 11 first, an item that we had a couple of prospective >> pieces of work for the standing committee on improvements that were going to >> be in the pipeline. They are now adequately scoped with the help of Staff or >> at least there is a form of I think we¹ll call it a template. And those >> templates are now populated. >> So the question is whether or not to refer these to the SCI. I just wonder >> whether there is any comment or question on these and where we take these. >> I looked at these two myself and I found them to be - both items which just >> feel to me that if they are (unintelligible) scoped, we could usefully do >> with some input on developing these. They weren¹t created in a vacuum; we¹ve >> run into real life issues. >> Avri, would you or Mary like to provide any other background or comment on >> these two items and whether or not we could usefully refer them to the SCI >> (unintelligible)? >> Mary, go ahead. >> Mary Wong: Hi Jonathan and everybody, it¹s Mary again. And Avri is trying to >> unmute herself I believe so I will defer to her. >> Just to say of course that it¹s not for Staff to suggest what would be the >> best course of action right now, but we can certainly provide some additional >> background if you like. > >> Avri Doria: Yes hi, this is Avri. I was on my phone and couldn¹t find the >> mute button. My apologies; I¹m not used to using the phone. >> >> Page 54 >> Yes, at the moment - I mean unfortunately perhaps, these didn¹t come in a >> form of a motion but they were just ready in time. And I want to thank, you >> know, Mary and Julie for preparing them. I really just sort of read, reviewed >> and made comments so they did most of the work. >> And what they did was they captured from the two conversations we¹ve had >> relating to the two issues. You know, the issues that we could send to the >> SCI. So I think people need to read the description to make sure that they >> represent the issue correctly. >> And then I believe this is something that we would need, you know, a function >> (sic) on perhaps it could fall in > > meant motion there > >> the consent mode if there¹s, you know, certainly been discussion on it and >> the text has been tightened. But I don't know how much further in these last >> minutes you want to go on these. >> I think the discussions that we had in Singapore are fairly represented. >> Hopefully the people that participated in those discussions will make sure >> that they are. >> And then I think we need to, you know, I think this would be a majority type >> vote, but I think it would be a motion that we would send it. Thanks > > (i hate reading what i say in transcripts - so many 'you knows' - must work on > that.) > >> . >> Jonathan Robinson: Thanks Avri. I mean I too appreciate the work that¹s gone >> into these, and so I think let¹s see if we can¹t review these further, let¹s >> make sure we¹re satisfied with them, and then as you say, bring them to the >> Council then formally. We¹ll consider this a preliminary discussion. >> To my mind, at least one of these items is something which we could usefully >> have as process improvement. So I¹m attracted to putting at least one through >> the process if not both, and it will be useful to get other input, as you >> say, refining the content if necessary and then bringing them forward for >> being dealt with by the SCI. > > > > > > > > > <http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast > antivirus software. > www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/> Attachment:
smime.p7s
|