Hi,

As we discussed in the meeting I am personally in favor of a variant of motion 2. (https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?28_january_2010_motions - Mikes)

I also indicated that I strongly favored Mike's proposed amendments.  However, I am not sure how many people agreed with me since there was so much silence (though one can wonder how anyone could have gotten a word in edgewise with us going at it as we did).  So I will not push for those.

I know if is late and people are tired of the subject, but i would like to offer 2 possible amendments that I think might be accepted as friendly:


<delete> ---- recognizing that this PDP may not conclude its work in time to affect the initial round of New gTLD applications, 

at best this adds ambiguity, at worse it might be taken as a tacit approval of the DAGv3 proposal.  i do not think the council should be doing that casually in a motion.

And I recommend adding another line to the very end of the motion that says:

<add> ---- Said charter should define its milestones in order to send recommendations to the Council within 16 weeks of the vote on the PDP. ----

That way there is at least an intention to get it done quickly.  It might not happen and the council might have to expand the time frame, but it takes a chance at getting it done before the expected date for the next DAG.  Please remember when the Board says do it or else, the council can do it.  So maybe this new council as policy manager can get it done as well.

a.

Ps. should they look for volunteers outside the council to work on the drafting team, i am interested in being considered.