Dear Colleagues, Please see below for the final version that I am going to send to the CCWG: ccNSO Council Statement on the 3rd Draft Proposal of the Cross Community Working Group Accountability (CCWG Accountability) The ccNSO Council fully appreciates the exemplary, long and intensive efforts the CCWG-Accountability has undertaken to deliver the 3rd Proposal to the ccNSO as one of the chartering organizations and wholeheartedly thanks all members and participants of the CWG-Accountability for their perseverance and hard work. The ccNSO Council wants to draw the attention to the comments made by the CWG-Stewardship, and its assessment that the 3rd Proposal does not fully meet the conditions and requirements of the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal. Taking into account the broad, though not unanimous support for the substantial elements in the 3rd Proposal by a majority of the ccNSO appointed members of the CCWG, and factoring in the public comments from the ccTLDs and Regional Organizations on the 3rd Proposal, as well as the guidance from the Dublin ccNSO meeting the ccNSO Council provisionally supports the direction of travel of the 3rd Proposal. However, the ccNSO Council strongly recommends that the CCWG-Accountability implement the changes requested by the CWG-Stewardship. In addition, the ccNSO Council also notes that based on comments and input from ccTLDs and Regional Organisations, the 3rd CCWG Accountability Proposal will need additional refinement to take into account concerns raised so as to increase the likelihood of adoption of the Final Proposal by all. The ccNSO Council would appreciate hearing from the CCWG Accountability, on whether and to what extent it intends to amend its report and the associated timeline for such amendments. There are two additional points I would like to make: 1) I did not include any reference to the ICANN Board comments. It is not our place to add to or reduce the weight of those comments at this time. Further, there is no agreement by the ccTLD community on the Board comments one way or another as this was not the intent of this statement. For the purposes of this statement I am not prepared to bring the Board comments into the ccNSO Council response to the CCWG. 2) The 4/5 ccTLD CCWG members who supported the Proposal and the 1/5 who did not all submitted written feedback to the ccTLD community (and us). Further, they all spoke, at some length, in Dublin so we know where they stand at this time. Subsequent to the refined 4th Proposal (assuming there is one) we can invite our CCWG members to speak to the Council, logistics permitting, or provide a written submission. Best regards, Byron From: Lesley Cowley [mailto:lesley-cowley@hotmail.co.uk] Sent: January-05-16 3:02 PM To: sdeerhake@nic.as Cc: Byron Holland; ccnso-council@icann.org; Bart Boswinkel Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] RE: Draft Statement to the CCWG 3rd Proposal I agree with the 'will' amendment and support the text from Byron subject to this change. However, if we agree to hear from the dissenting CCWG member, then I think that we should hear from all ccNSO appointed CCWG members - in order to ensure balance and a full range of information and views are provided to the Council. In the interests of time, a time-limited slot for each to share their final and summary thoughts would be needed I guess. Kind regards, Lesley On 5 Jan 2016, at 19:55, Stephen Deerhake <sdeerhake@nic.as<mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as>> wrote: Byron, Thank you for the edits. I would alter the penultimate sentence from In addition, the ccNSO Council also notes that based on comments and input from ccTLDs and Regional Organisations, the 3rd CCWG Accountability Proposal may need additional refinement to take into account concerns raised so as to increase the likelihood of adoption of the Final Proposal by all. to In addition, the ccNSO Council also notes that based on comments and inputs from ccTLDs, and Regional Organisations, and the ICANN Board, the 3rd CCWG Accountability Proposal may will need additional refinement to take into account concerns raised so as to increas the likelihood of adoption of the Final Proposal by all. I also think it would be useful for Council to reach out to the decenting ccNSO appointed CCWG member to get a better understanding of his issues with the Proposal as it now stands. Best, /Stephen From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org> [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Byron Holland Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2016 2:27 PM To: ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org> Cc: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>> Subject: [ccnso-council] RE: Draft Statement to the CCWG 3rd Proposal Dear Colleagues, Thank you to all that provided feedback. Based on Stephen's feedback I have made a couple of minor editorial changes which I think will add further clarity. At this point it is my intention to send the attached document to the CCWG. Best regards, Byron From: Byron Holland Sent: December-31-15 10:51 AM To: ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org> Cc: Bart Boswinkel Subject: Draft Statement to the CCWG 3rd Proposal Dear Colleagues, As per our December 23rd discussion regarding our feedback to the CCWG 3rd proposal, please see the attached for our proposed statement. For your convenience I have also pasted it below. I would like to send this to the CCWG on Monday. If there are any suggestions or concerns, please provide your feedback asap. Happy New Year, Byron Draft Statement on the 3rd Draft Proposal of the Cross Community Working Group Accountability (CCWG Accountability) The ccNSO Council fully appreciates the exemplary, long and intensive efforts the CCWG-Accountability has undertaken to deliver the 3rd Proposal to the ccNSO as one of the chartering organizations and wholeheartedly thanks all members and participants of the CWG-Accountability for their perseverance and hard work. The ccNSO Council wants to draw the attention to the comments made by the CWG-Stewardship, and its assessment that the 3rd Proposal does not fully meet the conditions and requirements of the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal. Taking into account the support for the substantial elements in the 3rd Proposal by a majority of the ccNSO appointed members of the CCWG, and factoring in the guidance from the Dublin ccNSO meeting as well as the public comments from the ccTLDs and Regional Organisations on the 3rdProposal, the ccNSO Council provisionally supports the direction of travel of the 3rd Proposal. However, the ccNSO Council strongly recommends that the CCWG-Accountability implement the changes requested by the CWG-Stewardship. In addition, the ccNSO Council also notes that based on comments and input from ccTLDs and Regional Organisations, the 3rd CCWG Accountability Proposal may need additional refinement to take into account concerns raised so as to increase the likelihood of adoption of the Final Proposal by all. The ccNSO Council would appreciate hearing from the CCWG Accountability, on whether and to what extent it intends to amend its report and the associated timeline for such amendments.