Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Draft Motion for GNSO

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Olivier.

I was also reminded of the RrSG statement that 
"[the recommendations] should be considered, and adopted, as a group."
Alan


At 14/06/2011 11:32 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
> Hello Alan,
>
> 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.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> 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.
> >
> > Alan
>
> --
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html