James, Has there been any further word from CCWG-ACCT? Best, Paul Paul D. McGrady, Jr. policy@paulmcgrady.com +1-312-558-5963 From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady (Policy) Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 08:32 AM To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Im concerned about waiving the document cut off if the last chance to waive red flags ethos remains. I thought that would be a difficult ethos to connect with in the first place, but as this drags out, it seems even more arbitrary. In other words, Im for keeping the Feb 29th session, so long as I am not told later that my stakeholders missed their window to raise issues because they werent raised on the 29th. Best, Paul From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 8:23 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Colleagues - Please see below. The CCWG will not publish today, which is the document cut-off for our Special Session on 29 FEB. Im open to proposals that we either (a) waive the document cut off for this document, and proceed with the Special Session, or (b) cancel the Special Session. I tend to favor the first approach, but will defer to the sentiment of the group on this. Any thoughts from the Council on this? On our call Thursday we noted that we would not want our first exposure to the CCWG Report was in Marrakesh. Todays development makes this scenario more likely. In response, I think we should prepare to repurpose additional sessions (potentially Sunday, Tuesday and Wednesday) in Morocco for this work. But we will have a clearer picture next week. Stay tuned. Thanks J. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 18:19 To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: "ACCT-Staff (acct-staff@icann.org)" <acct-staff@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Dear all, As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19 February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options as a full group. There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation #11). Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw). We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note, apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/0 11056.html. While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main target and duty remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process. It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process. We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesdays CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and directions the group can take at this stage, each with different implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a group. Until the Tuesday call, lets keep open channels of communication on our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule. As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage constructively and recognize each others value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to act accordingly. Thank you, Thomas, León, Mathieu CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs