Ed:
While
always respectful of your views, I remain concerned that delaying initiation of
our consideration of the Final Proposal until Marrakech will crowd out most
other issues on our agenda and still result in rushed and less than fully
comprehensive consideration. I would certainly support a Doodle poll to identify
other pre-departure for Marrakech dates that might work for Council
members.
So
far as my “momentum” remark, what I was trying to articulate was a view that the
Council, which has understandably lagged behind the other Chartering
Organizations due to the size and diversity of its membership, should try to
catch up and even get a bit ahead in this final stage of the WS 1 approval
process – whether that is to approve the recommendations package or identify one
or more that raise continuing concerns.
In
any event, I remain of the view that we should try to get a head start on final
decisions to be made in Marrakech by holding at least one pre-Marrakech
discussion.
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: Edward Morris
[mailto:egmorris1@toast.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 1:12
PM
To: James M. Bladel; GNSO Council List; Phil
Corwin
Subject: re: [council] RE: CCWG - Timeline for Approval by
GNSO
Hi Phil and
James,
Although the NCSG has
yet to meet and formulate a position on the way forward, my strong personal
preference would be not to have a special call and, instead, deal with this
issue during our normal course of business in
Morocco.
Part of the objection
is personal: I'm not available on the 29th. Like many of my colleagues in the
noncommercial community whose professional commitments are unrelated to ICANN,
my schedule in the week preceding our 12 day (including travel) adventure to
Morocco is set and packed. I'll be in the air most of the 29th, travelling from
the UK to Minnesota, in a meeting in St. Paul on the 30th, and then heading for
Morocco the next day. If we are to have a special call I would ask that a Doodle
poll first be conducted to see who could attend and
when.
I certainly respect
Phil's concerns about delaying our vote. I do, however, believe the CCWG needs
to take precedence over other issues. I do understand that those of us in the
NCSG are a bit unique in that we freely and individually determine our own
votes. For us, having F2F time prior to the full Council meeting to talk about
our positions and concerns is very important. Not all of our Councillors have
been intensely involved in the CCWG. That said, I would think that other SG's
and C's might want to talk things over F2F before rendering a decision on this
very important matter as well. In fact, ideally I'd delay the vote until our
Tuesday meeting so all of us have ample opportunity to receive input from our
members during earlier Constituency and SG meetings before we
vote.
I also disagree with
Phil when he writes that giving "significant momentum" to the final
accountability proposal should be a concern. That's not our job. Our job is to
consider the proposal, consult with our members, and vote appropriately.
Provided we meet the deadline given to us by the CCWG we've done our
job.
Best,
Ed
From: "Phil Corwin"
<psc@vlaw-dc.com>
Sent:
Thursday, February 11, 2016 5:37 PM
To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, "GNSO Council
List" <council@gnso.icann.org>
Subject:
[council] RE: CCWG - Timeline for Approval by GNSO
James:
This
matter was just discussed on the regularly scheduled call of the BC, followed by
further discussion among the BC Excomm members.
The
strong preference of the BC is for Council to schedule a Special Session call on
2/29.
There have been only a few significant changes to the Recommendations since
Council last reviewed them, so we are not starting de novo. If we can complete
our work on the 29th that would give significant momentum to the
Final Accountability Proposal. If we can’t complete the work then at least we
should be able to identify the few remaining Recommendations on which there may
still be concerns, and then zero in on them in Marrakech.
The
BC has significant concerns about not starting the process until Saturday, March
5th (not 4th), as that could unduly impact our
consideration of other matters on our agenda. Also, many of us will be
jetlagged, and there are always unanticipated travel delays that may prevent
some Councilors from participating.
Also,
since our final action on the Charter for the RPM review WG will apparently be
scheduled for Marrakech, we want to make sure that Council has sufficient time
to complete it. The New gTLD Subsequent Rounds WG was authorized last month and
as the two WGs will be coordinating it would be best to have their launches as
close together as feasible.
Best
to all,
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]
On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016
7:40 PM
To: GNSO Council List
Subject: [PHISHING - This
email could be a fraud attempt] - [council] CCWG - Timeline for Approval by
GNSO
Council
Colleagues -
Earlier
this week, the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs updated the timeline for delivery
of their Final / Supplemental report, which is now expected to be delivered to
Chartering Organizations (GNSO) on 18 FEB.
And
yesterday, the community received an update from Theresa Swinehart on how the
Community would deliver the final proposal to the ICANN Board for review,
approval, and submission to NTIA (attached). The Board is scheduled to
complete this task at their Thursday session at ICANN 55 in Marrakesh on 10
MAR.
The
period bookended by these two dates — 18 FEB through 10
MAR—represents the time frame in which the ICANN Community must review and
approve (or reject) the CCWG report and recommendations. In our case, this
work includes confirming that the pre-requisites established by the
CWG-Stewardship have been satisfied (see: letter from GNSO Chairs to
CWG-Stewardship Chairs, http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/bladel-to-robinson-fuhr-09feb16-en.pdf).
It
goes without saying that this is a very tight schedule, even if everything goes
exactly according to plan. And there are only a few chances for the
Council to gather, discuss the views of our Stakeholder Groups and
Constituencies, and ultimately vote on the CCWG report.
To
give ourselves the best opportunity to deliver, I propose that we augment our
meeting schedule between now and the deadline by one or more of these
options:
(1)
Hold a Special Session of the GNSO Council on 29 FEB @ 2100UTC – Our
procedures require 7 day advance notice to convene an off-calendar meeting of
the GNSO Council. This date would be available following our next call and
delivery of the CCWG report on 18 FEB, and completing this work before Marrakesh
would be a huge win. Downside: This will only allow 11 days for
SGs/Cs to review & discuss the report, and many of us will be departing for
Marrakesh shortly thereafter.
(2)
Re-purpose some or all of the time on Saturday 4 MAR as a Special Session
– This is already on everyone’s calendar, and would be an excellent time to
discuss the CCWG and conduct a vote, and would provide another week or so for
SG/C review. Downside: We would need to sacrifice some portion of our
“usual” Saturday agenda. For example, we could ask for Working Group
updates via email, rather than in person.
(3)
Re-purpose some or all of the time on Tuesday, 8 MAR as a Special
Session – This meeting is also already on the calendar. Typically it
has been an informal discussion among the Council to prepare for the Wednesday
Public Meeting, so we would sacrifice some or all of that. And with
another meeting the next day, there wouldn’t be much time to work out any last
minute issues.
Regardless
of which option(s) we choose, we must consider the Public Meeting on 9 MAR as a
can’t-miss deadline for our approval (or reaction) of the CCWG. Also, we should
look for opportunities to parallelize work streams, for example, by initiating
the SG/C processes to review the CCWG as soon as
possible.
This
is what I propose for discussion on our next call. There may be other
options as well, so please bring your ideas next
Thursday.
Thanks
for reading this far, and looking forward to our time together next
week.
J.
No
virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus
Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16
Internal Virus Database is out
of date.
No virus found in
this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus
Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16
Internal Virus Database is out
of date.