Re: [gnso-pro-wg] Agenda - 24 April

[Liz Williams <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello everyone

Just a quick update.

I have sent to you the document templates which need to be used to  
facilitate standardised information inputs.

I've sent you a "guidelines" document into which the email discussion  
will find its way if there is agreement.

I've sent you a draft Working Group Report which sets out how the  
information about the Statement of Work needs to be reported.

I've sent you the questionnaire and a reminder about the online survey.

Here is the link again...please encourage people to use it.

The link to send people: https://www.bigpulse.com/692i

Liz
.....................................................

Liz Williams
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN - Brussels
+32 2 234 7874 tel
+32 2 234 7848 fax
+32 497 07 4243 mob




On 24 Apr 2007, at 05:22, Rosette, Kristina wrote:

> All,
> Set forth below is the agenda for Tuesday's meeting, which is a  
> carry-over of last week's meeting.
> I. Roll
> II. "Best Practices"/"Suggested Guidelines"
>         A.  Terminology and Definition
>         B.  Framework Suggested by L. Williams
>         C.  Specific Proposals
>         D.   Correlation of Proposals to Issues Created by Prior  
> Rights Protection Mechanisms
> III.  Outstanding Issues
>         A.  Definitions
>         B.  Experts
>         C.  TLD Summaries
>
> -*-
> PLEASE post outstanding TLD summaries.
> I had been asked to include an agenda item regarding "de-linking"  
> the PRO WG output from the final gTLD report so that additional  
> work could be done. As you can see, I have not done so. It is not  
> within this WG's discretion to decide whether or not it should meet  
> the timing aspect of the mandate passed by the GNSO Council.   
> Because the GNSO Council does not meet again until May 24, which is  
> after our May 17 report deadline, it will not be possible to seek  
> an extension of time before our report deadline.  Accordingly, the  
> WG is responsible for submitting its report on the previously set  
> deadline -- which was already extended once by 30 days.  There is,  
> of course, no reason why that report could not include an outline  
> of additional work that the WG or various members of it suggests be  
> done; provided, of course, that the outline is a supplement to  
> completed work and not provided in lieu of such work.   Discussion  
> of our report may well result in an extension, which is what  
> happened with the Reserved Names Working Group.
>
> I look forward to talking with everyone tomorrow and I again  
> encourage everyone to use this list to start discussions of  
> specific proposals.
>
> Kristina