Yes I’d support this, plenty of us who have been working on CWG and CCWG can move quickly on this working with councillors in a bottom up manner.



-J



From: NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>

Reply-To: farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>

Date: Friday 24 June 2016 at 07:24

To: "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>

Subject: Re: Council Item for Disussion



or perhaps call for an open group so that anyone can join?







On 24 June 2016 at 08:01, Dorothy K. Gordon <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

In theory your approach would be ideal but given the deadlines would it be effectively possible? Perhaps Council + a few others?



----- Original Message -----

From: "James Gannon" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>

To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>

Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 6:12:30 AM

Subject: Council Item for Disussion





Hi All,

As we know there are many changes coming for the role of the GNSO with our new accountability powers, I want to call out the following item on the council agenda for Helsinki



    * Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE - Approval to Form a Drafting Team to Develop an Implementation Plan for New and Additional GNSO Powers and Obligations under the Revised ICANN Bylaws (15 minutes)



I have to say that I am concerned about this, this is a critical item for the GNSO and will set its strategic view and position for the next 5-7 years most likely, I don’t fee very comfortable with this being done in a potentially top down manner by council, I feel that this should be developed in a bottom up manner by the SGs and C’s first.





I would be interested in others thoughts so that we can guide the PC on a position on this









James







--

Farzaneh