Greetings Byron, I concur with the first two paragraphs. I do, however, have some issues with the third paragraph that I want to put on the record. First, the phrase "Taking into account the support for the substantial elements in the 3rd Proposal by a majority of the ccNSO appointed members of the CCWG" substitutes the concept of "voting" for "consensus" --yes, it's true that 4 out of 5 of the ccNSO Council appointed members to the CCWG appear to support the CCWG Accountably Proposal #3 (30 November 2015), but the fifth member does not. Under a "consensus" model (which I've been assuming we've been operating under with all things ICANN-wise these last 14+ years), this is hardly "consensus" for support for the V3 proposal.) I thus question the use of the phrase "a majority of the ccNSO appointed members of the CCWG". How does 80% constitute "consensus"? I think a more nuanced phrasing would be appropriate. Second, I question the reference to the ccNSO Community consultation that we undertook in Dublin given that what transpired during the course of the Dublin meeting evolved over the course of that meeting into a very different beast post-Dublin, first with the shift of models during the course of the latter days of the Dublin meeting, and second, with the firming up of the details that led to the CCWG Accountability proposal of 30 November. I cannot subscribe to the fact that although the model shift was proposed and discussed in Dublin, it is in anyway realistic to assume that ccNSO members actually absorbed the details of the model shift in our F2F meeting in Dublin, let alone our non ccNSO ccTLD colleagues who do not follow our activities pro-actively, absorbed it. And at the end of the day, we need to take into consideration, as much as we can, our non-participatory colleagues in our decision making. I concur with the rest of the proposed statement beginning with "However, the ccNSO Council strongly recommends that the CCWG-Accountability implement." I humbly request that you and Bart revise the proposed statement to reflect the concerns that I have expressed regarding its current content. Best Regards, Stephen Deerhake American Samoa (.as) From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Byron Holland Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2015 10:51 AM To: ccnso-council@icann.org Cc: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] 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 3rd 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 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.