Thanks Phil. I realize everyone is probably at or watching the Senate hearings this morning, but just a reminder that we are on the clock to send anything to the Drafting Team/Board. There's likely nothing objectionable here, and I still think there's some value in sending the text (as modified by Paul). If there are no further edits, I'll ask Staff to post by noon Pacific. Thanks- J. On May 23, 2016, at 21:37, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: On further thought, I note that this letter is to the Bylaws drafting team, not the Board. That doesn’t alter my suggestions on consulting with individual SGs/Cs, and making sure there are no deviations identified – but it does assuage my concern that the comments will not be given serious consideration. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 10:19 PM To: Paul McGrady; 'James M. Bladel'; 'Drazek, Keith' Cc: 'Marika Konings'; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Proposed letter to the Drafting Team As I think I understand from reviewing the thread, the current text now reads as follows: Dear Bylaws Drafting Team: The GNSO Council thanks you for your efforts in attempting to distill the instructions found in the CCWG-Accountability Report into a revised version of ICANN’s Bylaws. We note that the draft Bylaws have generated significant public comment from members of the GNSO community. We ask you to carefully review each of these comments and give them serious consideration. It is important that the revised Bylaws remain faithful to the CCWG-Accountability Report on which we, as a Council, were called upon to vote in Marrakech. We are fully at your disposal should you wish to consult us on any issue raised in the comments generated by the GNSO community. Kind regards, James Bladel If that’s the case, then I have no serious objection to sending it, although I do have some misgivings. It doesn’t convey much beyond asking the Board to take their job seriously (and should we have to ask that in the first place?), and that we’re available for consultation. But we (in terms of the Council as a whole) are not really available to explain the views files by the various SGs and Cs, as each of them emphasized different points – so maybe the letter should say that we are sure each of the separate groups making up the GNSO are available to further explain their POV. The real misgiving, now that we know when the Board has scheduled its vote (and the outcome is preordained, I think we’d all agree) is that, by saying nothing further, we concede by implication that a vote six days after the closing of the comment period constitutes serious consideration by the Board. At the least I think we should ask that they take steps, through consultation with their own lawyers and those advising the CCWG and CWG, to assure that that none of the comments has identified a draft Bylaws provision that materially deviates from the final reports and recommendations – and that if they have, that the deviation has been cured. Thanks for your consideration. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 5:14 PM To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'Drazek, Keith' Cc: 'Marika Konings'; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Proposed letter to the Drafting Team Thanks James. I think we just delete: “These include: [Paul McGrady to pull these links out of the public comment after it closes]” If we aren’t prepared to draw attention to all of the comments by GNSO members, I don’t want to see a hierarchy in place by making some referred to directly and some “also of interest”. This is especially so due to the lack of utility of the letter generally. When I asked that we send one, it was when I was still operating under the impression that there would be a good faith process by which the public comments were carefully reviewed and considered prior to adoption of the bylaws. From what we have seen from Bruce’s email, that will not be the case. Best to all, Paul From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 11:23 AM To: Paul McGrady; Drazek, Keith Cc: Marika Konings; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Proposed letter to the Drafting Team Paul - If I’m understanding correctly, we could modify this sentence: "We ask you to carefully review each of these comments and give them serious consideration.” To something like: "We ask you to carefully review each of these comments, and any other submissions from members of the broader GNSO Community, and give them serious consideration." Thanks- J. From: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>> Date: Monday, May 23, 2016 at 11:18 To: Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Cc: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Proposed letter to the Drafting Team Likewise, excluding members of the GNSO community could be viewed as elevating comments from constituent bodies of the GNSO above actual users of ICANN services within the GNSO. To solve the problem, how about let's not provide links, just tell them they need to take comments made by GNSO members seriously? Sent from my iPhone On May 23, 2016, at 12:04 PM, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@Verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> wrote: Fully agree with James here. Regards, Keith From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 10:57 AM To: Paul McGrady; 'Marika Konings'; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Proposed letter to the Drafting Team Hi Paul - Off the cuff, I have some concerns about Council going further than official positions by the SGs/Cs. Most individuals or organizations have some affiliation with the GNSO, and it would be difficult to make a clear distinction. The risks of us referencing one comment, while leaving out one from an equivalent person or group (even if due to error) could be seen as Council endorsement. Also, consider the scenario where there are significant differences between the position of a commenter versus their respective SG/C. If the RrSG comments in favor of chocolate ice cream, but comments from GoDaddy favor vanilla, then by including both the Council could be perceived as undermining the consensus-building processes within that SG/C. In this case, the IPC & NTIA comments are probably aligned, but absent an analysis from Staff, we should be cautious about inserting ourselves in to any position differences. I understand your intention to present a list that is as comprehensive as possible, but I’m concerned that there’s no way to do so in a fair an equitable manner, and especially without creating precedent for future comments. But I’d welcome thoughts from other Councilors on this point. Thanks— J. From: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>> Date: Monday, May 23, 2016 at 8:15 To: 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] Proposed letter to the Drafting Team Thanks Marika. I think we have to go more granular than just the C’, SG’s etc. For example, INTA put in public comments. They are a member of the IPC and a therefore a member of the GNSO community. Best, Paul From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 7:59 AM To: James M. Bladel; Paul McGrady; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Proposed letter to the Drafting Team I believe Bruce just answered question #1. With regards to bullet 3: * IPC - http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-new-bylaws-21apr16/msg00028.html * NCSG - http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-new-bylaws-21apr16/msg00022.html * BC - http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-new-bylaws-21apr16/msg00024.html * ISPCP - http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-new-bylaws-21apr16/msg00012.html * RySG - http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-new-bylaws-21apr16/msg00011.html Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...>. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Sunday 22 May 2016 at 13:35 To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Proposed letter to the Drafting Team Hi Paul - Thanks for kicking this off. Generally, I’m good with this letter. A few questions/comments: * Given the compressed timeline, can we ask Staff to confirm whether or not the Drafting Team will have an opportunity to amend the proposed bylaws before submitting to the Board? I’m assuming they will, but… * Should we also cc: the Board and/or CCWG Co-Chairs? (hedge) * With the Comment Period now closed, could we task someone from Policy Staff to assist Paul in gathering links to GNSO comments? * The Board is meeting this week to consider the draft bylaws. It is therefore imperative that we move quickly to get this sent. Councilors, please send edits/comments/concerns by EOD (Pacific) Monday to ensure that this is posted overnight Tuesday. Thanks again— J. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>> Date: Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 6:01 To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] Proposed letter to the Drafting Team Hi all, On our last call, I volunteered t draft a short letter from James to the Bylaws Drafting Team. Here is the proposed body of that letter to be kicked around the Council list: ________ Dear Bylaws Drafting Team: The GNSO Council thanks you for your efforts in attempting to distill the instructions found in the CCWG-Accountability Report into a revised version of ICANN’s Bylaws. We note that the draft Bylaws have generated significant public comment from members of the GNSO community. These include: [Paul McGrady to pull these links out of the public comment after it closes] We ask you to carefully review each of these comments and give them serious consideration. It is important that the revised Bylaws remain faithful to the CCWG-Accountability Report on which we, as a Council, were called upon to vote in Marrakech. We are fully at your disposal should you wish to consult us on any issue raised in the comments generated by the GNSO community. Kind regards, James Bladel Best, Paul policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16