I agree to discuss the response format at first. In this context looking at
the requirements the CCWG charter is setting here might be of assistance
(section V, Decision-Making Methodologies):
“ 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....”
For me “decision” and “adoption” means a firm answer to be provided by the
SO, not just a report of the various positions within it. I’d feel more
comfortable – also with regards to future reference – if in the end we had a
formal vote. This could be done eg. rec. by rec. and finally about the whole
package – or in any more sophisticated way.
I understand that the discussion process within some SGs/Cs is not yet
finished. Eg this is the case within the ISPCP constituency where we’ll have a
call on Friday this week. From the ongoing CCWG discussion I’ve taken the
impresseion that the timeline at the moment is a bit weak (it depends on SO/AC
input for sure). 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.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
From: James M. Bladel
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 3:35 AM
To: McGrady, Paul D. ; Marika Konings
Cc: Johan Helsingius ; GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG
Accountability Third Draft Report
Hi Paul. Sorry for any confusion.
The option to forego a formal vote and simply communicate our
position(s)
via letter to the CCWG Co-Chairs is still on the table, but some have
expressed a preference for a more formal measure (and recording) of
GNSO
support. This discussion of how to format our response should be
the
first agenda item for our call on Thursday.
And if it helps address the concerns of SGs and Cs, keep in mind that
our
objective is to capture and reflect the substance of positions
already
submitted during the Public Comment period. None of us are asking (or
authorized) to negotiate these positions, or agree to any new or
modified
support conditions. We either identify & present the common
GNSO
positions (where apparent), or (if necessary, in the event of
divergence)
refer the CCWG back to the individual SG/C comments.
Hope this is helpful, and looking forward to our call Thursday.
Thanks—
J.
On 1/11/16, 16:21 , "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@winston.com>
wrote:
>Thanks all. I'm confused. We appear to be talking about the
formal
>mechanisms of a vote, but I thought we left it with Thursday's call
being
>a time to go through the "temperature taking" document that the
subgroup
>went through and then find a mechanism to send that to the CCWG
(perhaps
>by letter but most likely not a formal up or down vote) and that
the
>formal up or down may come at a later date when we have the next
draft
>from the CCWG. Is that still the plan? If not, I need to
let me C know
>that and start to get more formal instructions than the
"temperature
>taking" comments I have been pushing my folks for. Thanks in
advance for
>your thoughts.
>
>Best,
>Paul
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]
>On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
>Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 6:10 PM
>To: Marika Konings
>Cc: Johan Helsingius; GNSO Council List
>Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG
>Accountability Third Draft Report
>
>
>Thanks for the correction Marika.
>
>Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri.
>
>
>> On Jan 11, 2016, at 15:19, Marika Konings
<marika.konings@icann.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>> For the record, under the GNSO Operating Procedures an
abstention
>> actually counts as a Œno vote¹ (See section 4.5.3 - 'According
to
>> existing rules, any abstention would not contribute to the passing
of
>> a motion; therefore, by default, an abstention functions as a
³No²
>> vote. The purpose of the remedial procedures in this section is
to
>>minimize this effect¹).
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Marika
>>
>> On 11/01/16 20:12, "owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of
Johan
>> Helsingius" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of
julf@julf.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi, James, and thank you for the clarifications!
>>>
>>>> On each issue, the Council will consider the question of
whether or
>>>> not the harmonized statement reflects the consolidated
position of
>>>> the GNSO, including any conditions or unmet concerns
expressed in
>>>>SG/C comments.
>>>> It
>>>> will be a yes(Support) or no(Object) vote, with any
abstentions
>>>> having the effect of 'Support'.
>>>
>>> And in case of lack of majority support, it will be 'limited
support'?
>>>
>>>> One point on which we have been consistent is that the
GNSO response
>>>> is limited to only the CCWG Third Draft, and is not
responding to
>>>> comments filed by the Board or other groups. This is
essential to
>>>> allow the CCWG to proceed on any next (final?) draft and
its work on
>>>>WS2.
>>>
>>> So we are assuming one more round of comments?
>>>
>>>> Hope this is helpful!
>>>
>>> Very much so, thanks!
>>>
>>> Julf
>>
>
>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.