Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Draft Motion for GNSO
- To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Draft Motion for GNSO
- From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:32:41 +0400
I too, agree with your comments. The PEDNR WG has done an extraordinary
amount to work for this report, and I believe the board should receive
all recommendations for approval.
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
On 14/06/2011 17:59, Alan Greenberg 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.
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD