Thanks Amr, Good point and good question and I'd welcome a discussion in and around the issues at some point. Key point is that whenever I communicate with the authority of Council (by motion or consensus) I typically write: A. As Chair B. For and on behalf of the Council In this case, I was asked if I would sign onto the letter as myself, not on behalf of the Council. Now, clearly I am chair and cannot expect my comments to be seen completely independent of the GNSO/Council. In this (rare) case, I made a judgement call that I could sign off on it, in part because there was significant support from the SG & Constituency leadership colleagues from the GNSO. If you see the list of names at the end, it is a list of names and not for and on behalf of the SGs & Constituencies in each case. Hope that helps clarify. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org] Sent: 31 August 2014 15:17 To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Letter to Fadi Chehadé and Stephen Crocker August 26th, 2014 Hi, Ive been wondering about this letter for a couple of days now (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/cooper-et-al-to-chehad e-et-al-26aug14-en.pdf), and am asking Jonathan and everyone else what the procedure is for the GNSO (or GNSO Council) to sign off on it. I would imagine that a motion and a vote would be necessary, and I imagine that it would have been received positively by the majority of Councillors, but I dont recall a discussion taking place. Im thinking there was either a discussion Ive completely overlooked, or a procedural issue Im not aware of. To be honest, I wasnt very much in favour of having the NCSG sign off on this letter when it was discussed at the stakeholder group level (and I dont believe the NCSG did actually sign off on it despite being listed as a signatory). That is not to say that I am particularly happy with the way the Accountability Process is moving forward, but would have preferred if there was a more concrete reason to request a delay in the process than to simply formulate questions. Speaking for myself, I think the reconsideration request filed (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/request-bc-rysg-ncsg-29aug14-en .pdf) served this purpose more eloquently. I only mention my personal preference in the substantive merits of the letter to clarify my personal thoughts, but my question is a process question irrespective of the actual contents of the letter. I would appreciate any and all thoughts on this. Thanks. Amr