I appreciate the diplomacy of the 'direction of travel' quote, but I am mildly concerned about words 'ccNSO Council supports'. I'm having a little trouble understanding Council's role (as forming part of ICANN) in approving proposals for constitutional change, and would appreciate some guidance as to what our powers are under the By-laws. I regret that the conditions did not allow me to fully participate in the Council meeting, so maybe this was touched on already? I'm also a bit concerned about the admission that our reps did not reach consensus. Could that be toned down? Surely it would be preferable Council might ask our 5 reps to get in a corner and hammer out an agreement before we support (even 'provisionally') this 'cat in a bag'? On 01/05/2016 07:48 PM, Demi Getschko wrote:
It seems ok to me. thanks. best demi
On 05-01-2016 17:26, Byron Holland wrote:
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 *Cc:* Bart Boswinkel *Subject:* Draft Statement to the CCWG 3rd Proposal
Dear Colleagues,
As per our December 23^rd discussion regarding our feedback to the CCWG 3^rd 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 3^rd 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 3^rd 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 3^rd Proposal does not fully meetthe conditions and requirements of the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal.
Taking into account the support for the substantial elements in the 3^rd 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 3^rd Proposal, 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 3^rd 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.