Hi Paul, I'm a bit confused. Is there another Paul McGrady or are you the same Paul McGrady who served on the CCWG sub-team with me and, frankly, had more input, as I did, to the sub-group submission than did the average Councillor? :) If you want to use hyperbolic terms like "censorship" I'll oblige: The NCSG/NCUC concerns on the role of the GAC were "censored" out of or comments on recommendation 1, the NPOC specific concerns on inspection were "censored" out of multiple recommendations, the NCSG call for more transparency in WS2 were "censored" out of WS 12. Man, we have a lot of "censorship" here. I can probably give you another 50 or 60 versions of "censorship" of NPOC/NCSG/NCUC views in this document. Of course, there is no "censorship" going on here. I'd prefer to avoid hyperbole and work cooperatively to develop a unified GNSO position on as many matters as we can. It won't be possible in every instance or on every recommendation or on any point and it won't be perfect and not every point by every group some of which diverge) will be captured. We do the best we can. I look forward to viewing James effort at doing so and look forward to working cooperatively with my fellow Councillors to constructing a response worthy of all of the fine groups that compose the GNSO. Best, Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@winston.com> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 1:25 PM To: "egmorris1@toast.net" <egmorris1@toast.net>, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "Mary Wong" <mary.wong@icann.org>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] RE: Action items from GNSO Council call on 17 January regarding the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal Thanks Ed. I guess we will just have to wait and see if the IPC position is censored out of Recommendation 9 or not. If it is, I suppose that the IPC will just have to find other avenues to make sure that the CCWG hears its voice. However, the IPC would prefer that the Council give the IPC the same status as other C's and SG's whose positions were allowed to be captured in the comments to Recommendation 9. Best, Paul From: Edward Morris [mailto:egmorris1@toast.net] Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 7:18 AM To: WUKnoben; Mary Wong; council@gnso.icann.org; McGrady, Paul D. Subject: RE: [council] RE: Action items from GNSO Council call on 17 January regarding the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal Hi everybody, I'd suggest we allow James to develop the letter as he proposed to do on the call yesterday. I think Wolf-Ulrich captures the essence of what James will be doing but in that he will be basing it upon the SG/C comments he does capture part of Paul's concern. I disagree with Paul, though, if he means every comment made by every GNSO C/SG should be included in the letter. If we were to do so the letter would become a book and useless for the CCWG. Synthesis does require some editorial judgement. There were many NCSG/NPOC/NCUC comments that were not captured during the sub-team's work. If the IPC is to insist all of their comments be captured I would be forced to insist all NCSG/NPOC/NCUC comments be captured in the letter as well. I don't want to do that. Let's give James a shot at developing a letter we can all support. It may prove to be an impossible task but he certainly has my full faith and confidence as he tries to do so. Best, Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@winston.com> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 11:54 AM To: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "Mary Wong" <mary.wong@icann.org>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> 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 From: McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 5:24 PM To: Mary Wong ; council@gnso.icann.org 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) Email: mary.wong@icann.org 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) Email: mary.wong@icann.org 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. 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.