Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Draft Motion for GNSO
- To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Draft Motion for GNSO
- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:32:05 -0400
Thanks Mikey. Sage words.
The motion was being proposed not for formal Council action (since we
did not publish our report in time for that) but for preliminary
discussion. There is no real need to have it on the table for the
Singapore meeting, so perhaps we need to take a deep breath and not rush.
At 14/06/2011 11:15 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
having just dragged the poor IRTP WG through this discussion, let me
offer the strong suggestion that we not rush through this
motion. none of us really focused on a couple of key issues in the
motion until we looked at in on the call and realized that there
were some subtle but substantive problems with the way the motion was worded.
my preference would be that we review the motion on a call -- but if
that can't happen then let me say this
TAKE A HARD LOOK AT THIS MOTION PEEPUL!!
we owe it to ourselves and all the work that we've done as a group
to make sure that this motion is absolutely right BEFORE it is
made. we're in an awkward position with IRTP because the motion has
already been made and changes are now outside of the control of the
On Jun 14, 2011, at 8:59 AM, 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.
- - - - - - - - -
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)