Forwarding on behalf of Ed Morris as his email has not made it to the Council list yet (we are looking into what may be the issue).
________________________________
From: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1(a)toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>>
Sent: Monday, November 2, 2015 11:45 AM
To: "David Cake" <dave(a)difference.com.au<mailto:dave@difference.com.au>>, "<council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>
Subject: re: [council] CCWG-Accountability timeline
Hi David,
Thanks for this and thanks again to yourself and Volker for containing to take on leadership responsibilities during our time of transition.
I suspect that each constituent SG within the GNSO, indeed down to the Constituency level where they exist, will have a different take on the 3rd draft proposal. Although I certainly believe that there would and should be general support for what I anticipate will be the proposal, each SG is likely to have different "red lines" and areas of disagreement with the draft.
I'd suggest that our role as Council should be more as an aggregator attempting to determine where there is consensus amongst the SG's on certain specifics of the 3rd draft and where we might have areas of divergence within the GNSO. I believe the former would be of greatest use to the CCWG. I would expect our constituent parts would elaborate in detail on their concerns with the proposal, and support thereof, in their own public comments. Where we as a Council and as a chartering SO could provide value is in letting the CCWG know where we are unified as an SO both in support of and in opposition to particulars of the draft.
As you noted, time is short. I'd suggest that the first step necessarily would be for us to go back to our "homes" within the GNSO once the draft is released to get feedback on the proposal that we can then bring to whatever aggregating mechanism we chose to set up. Certainly we'd need to have this input no laster than 3 December, giving us at Council level 2 weeks prior to our call on 17 December to put something together for consideration and endorsement by the entire Council on the call. I haven't encountered anything quite like this during my brief tenure on Council but I assume forming some sort of team to draft the GNSO response might be appropriate.
Best,
Ed Morris
________________________________
From: "David Cake" <dave(a)difference.com.au<mailto:dave@difference.com.au>>
Sent: Monday, November 2, 2015 10:46 AM
To: "<council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>
Subject: [council] CCWG-Accountability timeline
The timeline for SOAC endorsement (obviously including GNSO) of the CCWG-Accountability proposal is quite short. The final report is due 15 Nov, and we need to have comments in by Dec 21. Of course comments by individuals, and SGs and constituencies are possible, but the co-chairs have indicated that commentary as a chartering organisation will be most valuable to them at this point, so we should plan to provide that. Given the relatively short time frame for producing GNSO consensus comments, we may wish to start discussion, at least of our process, prior to the delivery of the report in two weeks.
One suggestion would be for the GNSO appointed members of the CCWG, perhaps including observers if appropriate, to outline at least issues they think are significant to the GNSO?
David
