Paul,
 
it isn’t my intention to suppress any important comment. My only concern is to come to those points which may be real deal breakers. I did not assess IPC or other comments may fall under this category or not. This can only be done by yourself.
 
I’m sorry if I was not clear enough.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich
 
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 12:49 PM
Subject: RE: [council] RE: Action items from GNSO Council call on 17 January regarding the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal
 

Hi Wolf-Ulrich,

 

I thought quite the opposite coming out of the call that there was broad agreement that the comments are the important part of our feedback and should be included in James’ letter.  You raise a much broader issue than just whether or not the IPC will be edited out of the Council’s comments on Recommendation 9 when everyone else was included (James, can I have a decision on this sooner rather than later?  If the IPC is to be excluded, I need to figure out how to explain the Council’s decision to include some voices but not others.  Note, I’m not asking for anything special here, just that what we submit include content from the IPC which was included in our public comment but excluded by whomever had that section in the subteam – in other words, a drafting error, the correction of which was supposed to be the subject of yesterday’s call).

 

All, regarding Wolf-Ulrich’s more general position, did anyone else on the call come away with the idea that the various positions of the C’s and SG’s would not be included in James’ letter?  I left the call with a 180 degree different take away after having several verbal and chat affirmations from several folks (including James) that the comments would make their way into the letter and the letter would not just be category descriptions (Broad, Limited, None, etc.) which would not be help to the CCWG as a feedback mechanism.  If we aren’t sticking to what we agreed to on the call yesterday, I need to know that as soon as possible too, but really hope we didn’t through 2 hours out the window.

 

Best to all,

Paul

 

 

 

From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 1:33 AM
To: McGrady, Paul D.; Mary Wong; council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] RE: Action items from GNSO Council call on 17 January regarding the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal

 

My understanding is the council in providing its answer to the CCWG shouldn’t be repetitive and not just list and combine the SG/C comments made during the public comment period. We all know that compromises are needed in order to make progress towards an acceptable text. In this respect our constituency refrains to go into more details with the exception of rec. 11.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

 

Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 5:24 PM

Subject: [council] RE: Action items from GNSO Council call on 17 January regarding the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal

 

Thanks Mary. 

 

Hopefully, we didn’t miss our window to be heard.  We thought the purpose of today’s call was to make sure the Subgroup captured all the comments and not that there was a pre-call deadline to review and suggest edits in the 48 hours or so given between draft and call.  I also hope that other c’s and SG’s aren’t making saliency decisions for each others’ comments.   In the sections I drafted, I tried to be as inclusive as possible, even if I didn’t share the concern.  I hope that was the right approach.

 

Best,

Paul

 

 

 

From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org]
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 9:18 AM
To: McGrady, Paul D.; council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: Action items from GNSO Council call on 17 January regarding the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal

 

Hi Paul and everyone,

 

The staff understanding was that what was, and is to be, included in the final document that lays out the Council’s response will basically be those SG/C comments that are considered to be most salient to the specific point being made (e.g. a GNSO condition). We therefore assumed that any additions of specific SG/C comments at this point would first go through a review process with James and possibly the Sub Team (as they were the ones that compiled the extract of SG/C comments). Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that none of these is either a staff position or view on what ought or ought not to be included or added to the document!

 

Thanks and cheers

Mary

 

 

Mary Wong

Senior Policy Director

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Telephone: +1-603-5744889

 

 

From: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@winston.com>
Date: Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 22:20
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org>
Subject: RE: Action items from GNSO Council call on 17 January regarding the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal

 

Thanks Mary.  Just a quick question on Rec 9.  Why would there need to be a review of whether or not to include the IPC comments?  Everyone else’s comments were included, so I don’t know why the IPCs would be subject to a review to see if they would be included.  Thanks for your thoughts.

 

Best,

Paul

 

 

 

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 8:17 AM
To: council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: [council] Action items from GNSO Council call on 17 January regarding the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal

 

Dear all,

 

Here are the notes that staff took in relation to action items stemming from the Special GNSO Council meeting that just concluded. Please let us know if we have missed or mischaracterized anything.

 

ACTION ITEMS:

  • Letter explaining GNSO Council response - James to prepare draft for Council consideration before 21 January, assisted by Keith and Ed
  • Rec 5, 11 - James to draft additional language along the lines of what was discussed/agreed on the call, assisted by Ed and Paul
  • Rec 1 - reinsert BC note about strong right of inspection (perhaps with cross-reference in/to Rec 3?)
  • Rec 2 - change "unanimous support" to "broad support"
  • Rec 3, 4 - no change
  • Rec 6 - remove last sentence; add note that certain questions remain to be resolved in WS2
  • Rec 7 - no change
  • Rec 8 – further elaboration needed on note about timeliness (including replies and deadlines)
  • Rec 9 - Review whether IPC comment on AOC section 8(b) and direct constituency participation in review teams should be included; review generally for accuracy
  • Rec 10 - emphasize need for it to be a community-led effort
  • Rec 12 - no change

Staff will follow up with James and the various Council volunteers to ensure that you have the updates as soon as practicable.

 

Thanks and cheers

Mary

 

 

Mary Wong

Senior Policy Director

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Telephone: +1-603-5744889

 


The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.


The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.


The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.