Hi, My understanding of the Triage Committee request is that Councillors have to consider the proposed course of action - ie to send the proposals to the community and for the ccNSO Chair to encourage responses. I do not think this means that the Council has to consider the material itself by the deadline (and if it does, then I agree with you that this is an unrealistic timeline). My view is that the course of action is fine, but that it should also include ‘add to next ccNSO Council agenda for further consideration on next steps’ On your other point about ‘silence equals approval’ I also take exception to this notion in this case. There have been times where silence has indeed indicated approval, but I feel that this will not be one of them. Kind regards, Lesley On 1 Dec 2015, at 17:44, Stephen Deerhake <sdeerhake@nic.as<mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as>> wrote: Byron, I note that Gabi has forwarded to the Council a request from the Triage Committee that members respond to Triage suggestion 46-2015 by the end of the day tomorrow (02.12.15 23:59 UTC) with their opinions/comments on the 12 recommendations made as part of the 30 November 2015 "CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations". Council members are being asked to weigh in on 12 recommendations described in 140 pages of primary documents (the "Annexes"), directly supported by an additional 99 pages of material, as well as 61 pages of Appendices. This is 300 pages of material in all. I frankly do not see how it is realistic to expect Council members to consider this amount of material in the 34 hours that have been allotted us, let alone make any meaningful judgements about its content or for that matter, the specific recommendations. Further, it is my understanding from ICANN Staff that the lack of proactive action on the part of a Council member with respect to Triage suggestion 46-2015 will be considered as that member having implicitedly given their consent to the recommendations of the CCWG. I have to take exception to this "silence equals approval" notion, as what is being asked of us, given the timeframe available to us, is utterly unrealistic, even for those members who have been attempting to follow the work of the CCWG. The result of this flawed process will be a false impression of support for the recommendations of the CCWG. I submit this approach will not serve the interests of either the ccNSO Community, nor the larger ccTLD Community. Best Regards, Stephen Deerhake AS Domain Registry (.as) GDNS LLC

Councillors, I believe there was a miss-communication/ miss-understanding of what the Triage Committee was recommending, which Katrina has clarified (thank you Katrina). All we are being asked to do is support (or not) he recommendation made by the Triage committee, which is the following: Recommended action, if any: Send to community for information; ccNSO Chair to actively encourage community input. Now that we are clear on the TC recommendation I suggest that it is reasonable and we should accept it. Does anybody on the Council object to this recommendation? Best regards, Byron From: Stephen Deerhake [mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as] Sent: December-01-15 12:44 PM To: Byron Holland Cc: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: RE: [ccnso-council] 46-2015: CCWG-Accountability - Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations Byron, I note that Gabi has forwarded to the Council a request from the Triage Committee that members respond to Triage suggestion 46-2015 by the end of the day tomorrow (02.12.15 23:59 UTC) with their opinions/comments on the 12 recommendations made as part of the 30 November 2015 "CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations". Council members are being asked to weigh in on 12 recommendations described in 140 pages of primary documents (the "Annexes"), directly supported by an additional 99 pages of material, as well as 61 pages of Appendices. This is 300 pages of material in all. I frankly do not see how it is realistic to expect Council members to consider this amount of material in the 34 hours that have been allotted us, let alone make any meaningful judgements about its content or for that matter, the specific recommendations. Further, it is my understanding from ICANN Staff that the lack of proactive action on the part of a Council member with respect to Triage suggestion 46-2015 will be considered as that member having implicitedly given their consent to the recommendations of the CCWG. I have to take exception to this "silence equals approval" notion, as what is being asked of us, given the timeframe available to us, is utterly unrealistic, even for those members who have been attempting to follow the work of the CCWG. The result of this flawed process will be a false impression of support for the recommendations of the CCWG. I submit this approach will not serve the interests of either the ccNSO Community, nor the larger ccTLD Community. Best Regards, Stephen Deerhake AS Domain Registry (.as) GDNS LLC