Fwd: Draft reply from GNSO to Fadi

[joy]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi all - apologies for the lateness in sending this through to this
list, but attached is an outreach from Mason Cole in drafting a GNSO
Council letter to ICANN CEO.
A number of NCSG GNSO Councillors have supported Mason to take this
letter forward and it is on the council meeting agenda for this week.
It is of course still open for edits and suggestions and, if you have
any, please do feel free to share them and we can discuss these at (or
before) the meeting
Cheers
Joy Liddicoat


- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Draft reply from GNSO to Fadi
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:07:24 -0800
From: Mason Cole <mcole at 5x5com.com>
To: Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com>, "David Cake
(dave at difference.com.au) (dave at difference.com.au)"
<dave at difference.com.au>, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com>, Wolfgang
Kleinwächter <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, "Joy
Liddicoat (joy at apc.org)" <joy at apc.org>

Maria, David, Wendy, Wolfgang and Joy --

I took the liberty of drafting a council response to Fadi's request
for the council's input on the BC/IPC proposals:
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg13964.html

It's attached here.  The thesis is that the RPMs requested by the BC
and IPC are in fact changes to established policy and not matters of
implementation, and, further that using such categorizations as a
basis for changing policy circumvents the council in a way that isn't
acceptable.  I kept the tone reasonable but I think the message comes
across.

Before I send this to the list, would you read it over an let me know
if it's something you can support?  I hope you can and would think
this is something that aligns with your belief in the council's
responsibility over policy development.

I'm under little impression the BC and IPC would sign on to this, so
perhaps the best available outcome is a letter detailing majority and
minority positions.  What I believe should be avoided is a response
only from the SGs, as this would further portray the council as broken
and ineffective.

Thanks for your attention.  I'd like to get this to the list soon -- I
realize we're all quite busy, but if you could provide feedback soon I
would be appreciative.

Happy holidays --

Mason




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQ0KdgAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqqXMH/Rk7ReBKfGezS88+D5zVcp/a
96gchWEdB6CDliBDjsZWVKewMbweiAH8ZROmXtSicjugw2Pa/4VOEidgUZZzRy6C
MIFMhI3Y3rt6ts37jan4JgvY+utwQUaz5hv3owLs8CPINTJH85ZlGGR0tGk7nhNe
X7Nmx4NCC42WqluPUf/GRF46pfcNsEb5JN5Ui8N1EADOdaI/lOPFPe7Km8fUv/IH
l51ZzetjstDdaw9NqWkYqsdidLlHYSPbBKO+OOwL+/OI66aa5GIkKbp0E5sngWX1
ewQDFN0c9ZSQioC6tdbdNbmZsE8AC5wdqgERAm/P5MVplJicbEEsTCoNBPnQGQA=
=ENso
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GNSO Reply to Chehade.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 140046 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20121219/b9b52256/attachment.docx>