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.