Hi Marika, Thanks for this. That certainly is an approach we could take but I question it's overall utility to those of us in the CCWG who are attempting to put together a proposal all of the chartering organisations can support. I would refer everyone to the CCWG Charter ( ), specifically: --- SO and AC support for the Draft Proposal(s) Following submission of the Draft Proposal(s), each of the chartering organizations shall, in accordance with their own rules and procedures, review and discuss the Draft Proposal(s) and decide whether to adopt the recommendations contained in it. The chairs of the chartering organizations shall notify the co-chairs of the WG of the result of the deliberations as soon as feasible. Supplemental Draft Proposal In the event that one or more of the participating SO's or AC's do(es) not adopt one or more of the recommendation(s) contained in the Draft Proposal(s), the Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability shall be notified accordingly. This notification shall include at a minimum the reasons for the lack of support and a suggested alternative that would be acceptable, if any. The CCWG-Accountability may, at its discretion, reconsider, post for public comments and/or submit to the chartering organizations a Supplemental Draft Proposal, which takes into accounting the concerns raised. Following submission of the Supplemental Draft Proposal, the chartering organizations shall discuss and decide in accordance with its own rules and procedures whether to adopt the recommendations contained in the Supplemental Draft Proposal. The Chairs of the chartering organizations shall notify the Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability of the result of the deliberations as soon as feasible. --- With the exception of its referral to the CWG requirements, I don't find the CCNSO response to be particularly helpful. Provisional support of the "direction of travel" doesn't tell the CCWG if we need to change some specifics of any of our recommendations. If the CCNSO is prepared to support all the recommendations save those related to the CWG they should say so. What we're trying to avoid is a situation where only on the final vote of approval / disapproval do we become aware of a Chartering organisations problems with a specific recommendation. As I understand things, that actually is the purpose of the special attention being paid to the Chartering organisations in this round of public comments. Although there are some tweaks that probably should be made, I do largely support the work of the Council sub-team and the result of their efforts and hope that is the basis of our discussion and response. Best, Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 3:39 PM To: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@toast.net>, "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com>, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report You may also be interested to see the approach the ccNSO Council took in their comments on the third draft proposal: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-draft-3-proposal-07jan16-en.pdf. Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> Reply-To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> Date: Wednesday 13 January 2016 at 15:42 To: Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Cc: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi, Other chartering organisations (see, for example, ALAC: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30n... ) have given clear indications of approval / disapproval of each of the twelve recommendations, along with reasoning thereof. I'd suggest we do the same. I'm ambivalent as to whether we indicate our preferences in the form of a Motion or a letter from our Chair, but I do believe the CCWG needs the simplified guidance that only a straight up / down decision on each recommendation can give. Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:07 PM To: "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com> Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi, I agree that a formal vote is not absolutely needed at this stage, but I wonder whether or not a formal vote of the 3rd draft recommendations would be helpful to the CCWG. I imagine that it will draw a very clear picture of where the stakeholder groups/constituencies of one of the CCWG's chartering organisations stand on each of the recommendations. Although these positions have probably been communicated by the appointed members from the GNSO groups, my guess would be that the members of the CCWG may still find a Council vote helpful. Just a thought. Thanks. Amr
On Jan 13, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote:
Wolf-Ulrich,
Maybe tomorrow we could sort out and discuss the very last not yet agreeable recs. The formal vote could then be taken at a later stage - maybe even at the council meeting next week.
I am not entirely sure why a formal vote is needed now, assuming there will have to be one more, final(?) draft - surely what counts is the vote on the *final* version. Or am I wrong in my assumptions?
Julf