Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Draft Motion for GNSO
Motion is not yet formally made, but should be done today if to be discussed at the Singapore GNSO meeting. However, such discussion would be preliminary as the report was not published in time for formal discussion at this meeting. Alan At 14/06/2011 10:11 AM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote: I'm supportive of this approach Alan but but when would new drafting of the motion be able to be done? is it going to make any GNSO deadline required for it ?Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)On 14 June 2011 23:59, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: I am attaching the motion which Marika drafted. She passed it by me and after a cursory look at it said it was ok. On further consideration, I see that I did not look at it carefully enough.Specifically, I did not notice that the motion divided the Recommendations into several groups, only one of which is to be sent to the Board for their approval.I strongly feel that the entire set of recommendations should be passed to the Board.Recommendation 17 (Registrars must point to new education material) in particular *MUST* go to the Board as it was the intent that this become part of the RAA, just as the current Registrant Rights and Responsibilities document was included in the last RAA revision.Recommendation 16 (develop education material) and 18 (compliance follow-up and reporting) request ICANN Staff action, and the should have the weight of the Board accepting them to ensure that the work is funded and done.And I believe that for consistency, Recommendations 10, 11 and 12 (Best Practices) should go to the Board as well, although that is of less import.Alan
|