RE: [soac-mapo] Final Rec 6 CWG Charter

[Tony Kirsch <tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All, 

I've just re-blogged the typo error. 

Just a simple typo between the December meeting and the September 
Retreat........apologies for the confusion. 

Kind Regards, 
Tony Kirsch


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
John Jeffrey
Sent: Saturday, 28 August 2010 7:10 AM
To: Stuart Lawley; Alan Greenberg
Cc: Liz Gasster; soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] Final Rec 6 CWG Charter


Stuart, et. al.

There has been no ICANN Board of Director's Meeting scheduled for 9 or 10 
September 2010.  Also, I am not aware of any proposal to do so.

best regards, 

John Jeffrey
General Counsel & Secretary
ICANN

________________________________________
From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stuart 
Lawley [stuart@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 9:42 AM
To: Alan Greenberg
Cc: Liz Gasster; soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Final Rec 6 CWG Charter

there seems to be some mixed messaging or breaking news coming out of the 
recent Tokyo ICANN meeting that either the Board retreat has been moved to 9/10 
September or an additional Board meeting has been/is being set for 10th 
September.
 Can someone clarify this for the group and also any impact on the timing of 
the report.

I have heard this date from other sources too.


see: 
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100827_icann_tokyo_meeting_more_clarity_on_the_new_gtld_program/



Stuart



On Aug 27, 2010, at 11:56 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> I note that at the GNSO meeting yesterday, there was a discussion about the 
> sentence in Operational Guidelines & Timeline that says:
>
> "The Rec6 CWG should deliver a report with comments from the ALAC, GAC and 
> GNSO Council not later than 13 September 2010 to meet the 11-day advance 
> publication that the Board requests for its retreat on new gTLDs."
>
> It was generally accepted that this timeline is not at all possible, since we 
> will have to work rather hard to get a report out for that date, but there 
> would be no time for each SO/AC to formally incorporate their comments in 
> that time-frame. There was some discussion that it could be reworded to say 
> the report was due by the 13th and the SO/ACc would deliver comments after 
> that date. However, most at the meeting were willing to just leave the words 
> along, even though it was recognized as an impossible target.
>
> Alan
>
> At 27/08/2010 11:23 AM, Liz Gasster wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> The final CWG Charter is attached for your reference.
>>
>> Best, Liz
>>