Paul Kane has asked me to forward this to the ccNSO council. Somewhat concerning . . . What thoughts to Councillors have? -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Work of CWG Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 18:13:19 +0000 From: pkane@cdns.net To: 'ccNSO Council' <ccnso-council@icann.org> CC: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> Quick update It is good to have our 5th member back - welcome Maarten. There are so many moving parts and the unique ccTLD position is being ignored/weakened. I proposed we had a ccTLD reps coordination call this week but Lise is busy (obviously starting her new job she is going to be busy) and Maarten is away on a skiing holiday - no reply from the others. Update - the CWG Stewardship members are being asked to review the latest transition documents in their entirety to determine if they are happy with the (revised) Accountability proposals and the updated CWG proposal to ascertain if it meets their needs in advance of our next call. For the record, the CWG's proposal has been manipulated (by whom I do not know) and some of the safeguards have been watered down. At our last call (Thursday 21st Jan) I asked that all docs for review be immediately sent to the CWG Stewardship mailing list so _all_ members (not a small subset) had the opportunity to review and make a determination if the ICANN and the PTI's obligations had been reinstated. I advised that I was willing to review the docs last weekend but the docs have NOT been published on the CWG Stewardship mailing list... so I have NOT seen the latest docs. The current strategy seems to be to work with a small subset and obscure the details (and infer acquiescence), so the transition can stay on course. For the record I am NOT in a position to lend my support to the current proposal as I do not know the details of the (current) revised proposal. Our ccTLD coordination call has been postponed and our mailing list is silent ..... :-( Best Paul