RE: [gnso-rap-dt] For review - draft motion

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Marika & Group:

I approve of the charter & motion, with Greg's suggested edits.  

Additionally, I agree with the suggestion on the time line from Beau. 
As for the additional Working Group Process section that Kristina
identified, I've seen this exact text in other WG reports, and have no
strong feelings on its inclusion, unless omitting it would violate the
protocol for these reports.

Thanks for putting this together, Marika.  I am available for a call on
Thursday (Feb 12), but unavailable today and Tuesday.

Thank you,

J.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-rap-dt] For review - draft motion
From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, February 09, 2009 12:01 pm
To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>, 
"gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx>

 Re: [gnso-rap-dt] For review - draft motion Kristina, I copied this
section from the Fast Flux Working Group Charter. I assumed that these
served as the current guidelines for Working Groups, but I might be
wrong here as these were adopted by the Council before I joined ICANN.
How was this handled in the past? I am more than happy to leave it out
and have the GNSO Council discuss which processes should apply to the
Working Group.
 
 Best regards,
 
 Marika
 
 
 On 2/9/09 6:54 PM, "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx> wrote:
 
 Where did the Working Group Processes section come from?  I've never
seen that text before and don't recall our discussing it.  (If I'm wrong
on the latter point, please let me know.)  With the exception of that
section, I'm fine with the motion.  I have no objection to changing the
time window to 90 days as Beau suggested.  I have no objection to Greg's
suggested amendment.  
  
 As for the Working Group Processes section, I would prefer that it be
deleted.  If these are the processes to apply, the decision should be
made by the Council and should apply to all WGs - not just this one. 
This is beyond our remit.  As for the substance itself, I believe the
more appropriate terminology for the minority report should be minority
statement.  The persons with the minority view aren't going to be
submitting their own report, right?  In that case, a "statement" is more
accurate.
  
 I have no availability for a call before the 12th.  (I'm in SF for the
INTA Internet Forum and won't be back in DC until Thursday.)
  
 K
 
  
  
  From: owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika  Konings
 Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 2:18 PM
 To:  gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
 Subject: [gnso-rap-dt] For review - draft  motion
 
  
 Dear All,
 
 As mentioned in my previous e-mail,  please find attached a draft
motion for review. Please note that the motion  will need to be provided
to the Council at the latest by Thursday 12 February  in order to be
considered at the next GNSO Council meeting on 19 February.  Please
share your comments and edits with the list.
 
 Best  regards,
 
 Marika