Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report
James and team, when we’ll have your findings available? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: WUKnoben Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 11:37 PM To: James M. Bladel ; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Thanks James and team, if you could make available the findings before the upcoming weekend this would be very helpful with respect to the timely coordination within the SGs/C’s. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 10:08 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Colleagues - Attached and copied below, please find a Motion for consideration during our special session on 14 JAN to consider the Recommendations contained in the Third Draft CCWG-Accountability report. The small sub team reviewing comments submitted by SGs and Cs met today, and finalization of the findings/comments contained in the motion will be completed between now and our meeting. Please note that on todays call we also raised the possibility that a GNSO response might be more informal (e.g., letter) rather than a formal motion. This will also be part of our discussion on the 14th, but I wanted to have the motion submitted to the list in the event that we choose this approach. Thanks— J. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Motion on GNSO Joint Position on CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal Whereas, <!--[if !supportLists]-->1. <!--[endif]-->The GNSO Council, together with other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, chartered the Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) on 13 November 2014 ‘to deliver proposals that would enhance ICANN’s accountability towards all stakeholders. <!--[if !supportLists]-->2. <!--[endif]-->The CCWG-Accountability published its third draft proposal for public comment on 30 November 2015 (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-201...). <!--[if !supportLists]-->3. <!--[endif]-->All GNSO Stakeholder Groups (SGs) and/or Constituencies (Cs) submitted their input on the third draft proposal and its 12 recommendations. <!--[if !supportLists]-->4. <!--[endif]-->A GNSO Council sub-team was formed to review the input submitted by the GNSO SG/Cs and make a recommendation to the GNSO Council concerning a possible joint GNSO position on the third draft proposal . <!--[if !supportLists]-->5. <!--[endif]-->The GNSO Council has reviewed the input provided by the sub-team on the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal. Resolved, <!--[if !supportLists]-->1. <!--[endif]-->The GNSO Council views on the recommendations contained in the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal are as follows: Recommendation #1 Establishing An Empowered Community For Enforcing Community Powers for more information GNSO Council Support General Support / Limited Support with some opposition / No support Comments Recommendation #2 Empowering The Community Through Consensus: Engage, Escalate, Enforce for more information GNSO Council Support General Support / Limited Support with some opposition / No support Comments Recommendation #3 Redefining ICANN’s Bylaws As ‘Standard Bylaws’ And ‘Fundamental Bylaws’ for more information GNSO Council Support General Support / Limited Support with some opposition / No support Comments Recommendation #4 Ensuring Community Involvement In ICANN Decision-Making: Seven New Community Powers for more information GNSO Council Support General Support / Limited Support with some opposition / No support Comments Recommendation #5 Changing Aspects Of ICANN's Mission, Commitments And Core Values for more information) GNSO Council Support General Support / Limited Support with some opposition / No support Comments Recommendation #6 Reaffirming ICANN's Commitment to Respect Internationally Recognized Human Rights as it Carries Out Its Mission for more information GNSO Council Support General Support / Limited Support with some opposition / No support Comments Recommendation #7 Strengthening ICANN's Independent Review Process for more information GNSO Council Support General Support / Limited Support with some opposition / No support Comments Recommendation #8 Improving ICANN's Request For Reconsideration Process for more information GNSO Council Support General Support / Limited Support with some opposition / No support Comments Recommendation #9 Incorporation of the Affirmation of Commitments for more information GNSO Council Support General Support / Limited Support with some opposition / No support Comments Recommendation #10 Enhancing the Accountability of Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for more information GNSO Council Support General Support / Limited Support with some opposition / No support Comments Recommendation #11 Board obligations regarding GAC Advice GNSO Council Support General Support / Limited Support with some opposition / No support Comments Recommendation #12 Committing to further accountability work in Work Stream 2 GNSO Council Support General Support / Limited Support with some opposition / No support Comments <!--[if !supportLists]-->2. <!--[endif]-->The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to share this GNSO Council input on the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal with the Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability as soon as possible. <!--[if !supportLists]-->3. <!--[endif]-->Although this GNSO input is submitted after the close of the public comment period, the GNSO Council expects the CCWG-Accountability to give this input due consideration as it is the aggregation of the individual GNSO SG/C positions that were submitted before the deadline. <!--[if !supportLists]-->4. <!--[endif]-->The GNSO Council appreciates all the efforts of the CCWG-Accountability to deliver its final proposal to the Chartering Organizations in a timely manner and looks forward to considering the final proposal in due time.
Everybody, I am curious as how we intend to determine the outcome on Thursday. Do we intend to do a separate voting point on each item in the draft? How do we reach a trinary result (general support / limited support / no support) using simple majority? Personally I am not too happy with those 3 alternatives. To me, the real alternatives (for each point) are something like: - "No issues" - "Not happy with the current wording, but can live with it if it is a show-stopper for the IANA transition" - "Should be refined as part of work stream 2" - "No go. Show stopper." And for those points where the board has expressed reservations, I guess one more alternative is "Can live with current wording, but any major back pedalling will be a show stopper and needs another comment round". What would be really helpful would be some indication of what the real show stopper points are from the point of view of the IANA transition - to me it seems many of the points in the current draft could (and probably should) really be in work stream 2. Julf
Hi Julf - This has also been a point of discussion, and hope to have a full discussion on Thursday. Generally, I believe we will vote on each CCWG recommendation, either voice vote (if not objections) or roll call vote. On each issue, the Council will consider the question of whether or not the harmonized statement reflects the consolidated position of the GNSO, including any conditions or unmet concerns expressed in SG/C comments. It will be a yes(Support) or no(Object) vote, with any abstentions having the effect of ³Support². One point on which we have been consistent is that the GNSO response is limited to only the CCWG Third Draft, and is not responding to comments filed by the Board or other groups. This is essential to allow the CCWG to proceed on any next (final?) draft and its work on WS2. Hope this is helpful! Thanks‹ J. On 1/11/16, 5:59 , "owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Johan Helsingius" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of julf@julf.com> wrote:
Everybody,
I am curious as how we intend to determine the outcome on Thursday. Do we intend to do a separate voting point on each item in the draft? How do we reach a trinary result (general support / limited support / no support) using simple majority?
Personally I am not too happy with those 3 alternatives. To me, the real alternatives (for each point) are something like:
- "No issues" - "Not happy with the current wording, but can live with it if it is a show-stopper for the IANA transition" - "Should be refined as part of work stream 2" - "No go. Show stopper."
And for those points where the board has expressed reservations, I guess one more alternative is "Can live with current wording, but any major back pedalling will be a show stopper and needs another comment round".
What would be really helpful would be some indication of what the real show stopper points are from the point of view of the IANA transition - to me it seems many of the points in the current draft could (and probably should) really be in work stream 2.
Julf
Hi, James, and thank you for the clarifications!
On each issue, the Council will consider the question of whether or not the harmonized statement reflects the consolidated position of the GNSO, including any conditions or unmet concerns expressed in SG/C comments. It will be a yes(Support) or no(Object) vote, with any abstentions having the effect of 'Support'.
And in case of lack of majority support, it will be 'limited support'?
One point on which we have been consistent is that the GNSO response is limited to only the CCWG Third Draft, and is not responding to comments filed by the Board or other groups. This is essential to allow the CCWG to proceed on any next (final?) draft and its work on WS2.
So we are assuming one more round of comments?
Hope this is helpful!
Very much so, thanks! Julf
For the record, under the GNSO Operating Procedures an abstention actually counts as a Œno vote¹ (See section 4.5.3 - 'According to existing rules, any abstention would not contribute to the passing of a motion; therefore, by default, an abstention functions as a ³No² vote. The purpose of the remedial procedures in this section is to minimize this effect¹). Best regards, Marika On 11/01/16 20:12, "owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Johan Helsingius" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of julf@julf.com> wrote:
Hi, James, and thank you for the clarifications!
On each issue, the Council will consider the question of whether or not the harmonized statement reflects the consolidated position of the GNSO, including any conditions or unmet concerns expressed in SG/C comments. It will be a yes(Support) or no(Object) vote, with any abstentions having the effect of 'Support'.
And in case of lack of majority support, it will be 'limited support'?
One point on which we have been consistent is that the GNSO response is limited to only the CCWG Third Draft, and is not responding to comments filed by the Board or other groups. This is essential to allow the CCWG to proceed on any next (final?) draft and its work on WS2.
So we are assuming one more round of comments?
Hope this is helpful!
Very much so, thanks!
Julf
Thanks for the correction Marika. Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri.
On Jan 11, 2016, at 15:19, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
For the record, under the GNSO Operating Procedures an abstention actually counts as a Œno vote¹ (See section 4.5.3 - 'According to existing rules, any abstention would not contribute to the passing of a motion; therefore, by default, an abstention functions as a ³No² vote. The purpose of the remedial procedures in this section is to minimize this effect¹).
Best regards,
Marika
On 11/01/16 20:12, "owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Johan Helsingius" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of julf@julf.com> wrote:
Hi, James, and thank you for the clarifications!
On each issue, the Council will consider the question of whether or not the harmonized statement reflects the consolidated position of the GNSO, including any conditions or unmet concerns expressed in SG/C comments. It will be a yes(Support) or no(Object) vote, with any abstentions having the effect of 'Support'.
And in case of lack of majority support, it will be 'limited support'?
One point on which we have been consistent is that the GNSO response is limited to only the CCWG Third Draft, and is not responding to comments filed by the Board or other groups. This is essential to allow the CCWG to proceed on any next (final?) draft and its work on WS2.
So we are assuming one more round of comments?
Hope this is helpful!
Very much so, thanks!
Julf
Sorry, my phone cut off the rest of the message: Could you repost the relevant section of the operating procedures that defines the ways we can reach a "simple majority"? Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri.
On Jan 11, 2016, at 16:08, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
Thanks for the correction Marika.
Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri.
On Jan 11, 2016, at 15:19, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
For the record, under the GNSO Operating Procedures an abstention actually counts as a Œno vote¹ (See section 4.5.3 - 'According to existing rules, any abstention would not contribute to the passing of a motion; therefore, by default, an abstention functions as a ³No² vote. The purpose of the remedial procedures in this section is to minimize this effect¹).
Best regards,
Marika
On 11/01/16 20:12, "owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Johan Helsingius" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of julf@julf.com> wrote:
Hi, James, and thank you for the clarifications!
On each issue, the Council will consider the question of whether or not the harmonized statement reflects the consolidated position of the GNSO, including any conditions or unmet concerns expressed in SG/C comments. It will be a yes(Support) or no(Object) vote, with any abstentions having the effect of 'Support'.
And in case of lack of majority support, it will be 'limited support'?
One point on which we have been consistent is that the GNSO response is limited to only the CCWG Third Draft, and is not responding to comments filed by the Board or other groups. This is essential to allow the CCWG to proceed on any next (final?) draft and its work on WS2.
So we are assuming one more round of comments?
Hope this is helpful!
Very much so, thanks!
Julf
A simple majority is defined as a simple majority of each house which is translates to: Motion or Action Reference Threshold CPH Conj. NCPH [cid:6EA137C6-7196-41CC-8FC0-8F5409230316] (see appendix 1 of the GNSO Operating Procedures for all voting thresholds). Best regards, Marika On 12/01/16 01:15, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote: Sorry, my phone cut off the rest of the message: Could you repost the relevant section of the operating procedures that defines the ways we can reach a "simple majority"? Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri. On Jan 11, 2016, at 16:08, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote: Thanks for the correction Marika. Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri. On Jan 11, 2016, at 15:19, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: For the record, under the GNSO Operating Procedures an abstention actually counts as a Œno vote¹ (See section 4.5.3 - 'According to existing rules, any abstention would not contribute to the passing of a motion; therefore, by default, an abstention functions as a ³No² vote. The purpose of the remedial procedures in this section is to minimize this effect¹). Best regards, Marika On 11/01/16 20:12, "owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Johan Helsingius" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>> wrote: Hi, James, and thank you for the clarifications! On each issue, the Council will consider the question of whether or not the harmonized statement reflects the consolidated position of the GNSO, including any conditions or unmet concerns expressed in SG/C comments. It will be a yes(Support) or no(Object) vote, with any abstentions having the effect of 'Support'. And in case of lack of majority support, it will be 'limited support'? One point on which we have been consistent is that the GNSO response is limited to only the CCWG Third Draft, and is not responding to comments filed by the Board or other groups. This is essential to allow the CCWG to proceed on any next (final?) draft and its work on WS2. So we are assuming one more round of comments? Hope this is helpful! Very much so, thanks! Julf
Now that´s very clear to me with this table…. :) Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez _____________________ email: crg@isoc-cr.org Skype: carlos.raulg +506 8837 7176 (cel) +506 4000 2000 (home) +506 2290 3678 (fax) _____________________ Apartado 1571-1000 San Jose, COSTA RICA
On 11Jan, 2016, at 18:26, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
A simple majority is defined as a simple majority of each house which is translates to:
Motion or Action Reference Threshold CPH
Conj. NCPH
<6EA137C6-7196-41CC-8FC0-8F5409230316.png>
(see appendix 1 of the GNSO Operating Procedures for all voting thresholds).
Best regards,
Marika
On 12/01/16 01:15, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote:
Sorry, my phone cut off the rest of the message:
Could you repost the relevant section of the operating procedures that defines the ways we can reach a "simple majority"?
Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri.
On Jan 11, 2016, at 16:08, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote: Thanks for the correction Marika. Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri.
On Jan 11, 2016, at 15:19, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: For the record, under the GNSO Operating Procedures an abstention actually counts as a Œno vote¹ (See section 4.5.3 - 'According to existing rules, any abstention would not contribute to the passing of a motion; therefore, by default, an abstention functions as a ³No² vote. The purpose of the remedial procedures in this section is to minimize this effect¹). Best regards, Marika On 11/01/16 20:12, "owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Johan Helsingius" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of julf@julf.com <mailto:julf@julf.com>> wrote:
Hi, James, and thank you for the clarifications!
On each issue, the Council will consider the question of whether or not the harmonized statement reflects the consolidated position of the GNSO, including any conditions or unmet concerns expressed in SG/C comments. It will be a yes(Support) or no(Object) vote, with any abstentions having the effect of 'Support'. And in case of lack of majority support, it will be 'limited support'? One point on which we have been consistent is that the GNSO response is limited to only the CCWG Third Draft, and is not responding to comments filed by the Board or other groups. This is essential to allow the CCWG to proceed on any next (final?) draft and its work on WS2. So we are assuming one more round of comments? Hope this is helpful! Very much so, thanks! Julf
Thanks all. I'm confused. We appear to be talking about the formal mechanisms of a vote, but I thought we left it with Thursday's call being a time to go through the "temperature taking" document that the subgroup went through and then find a mechanism to send that to the CCWG (perhaps by letter but most likely not a formal up or down vote) and that the formal up or down may come at a later date when we have the next draft from the CCWG. Is that still the plan? If not, I need to let me C know that and start to get more formal instructions than the "temperature taking" comments I have been pushing my folks for. Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Best, Paul -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 6:10 PM To: Marika Konings Cc: Johan Helsingius; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Thanks for the correction Marika. Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri.
On Jan 11, 2016, at 15:19, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
For the record, under the GNSO Operating Procedures an abstention actually counts as a Œno vote¹ (See section 4.5.3 - 'According to existing rules, any abstention would not contribute to the passing of a motion; therefore, by default, an abstention functions as a ³No² vote. The purpose of the remedial procedures in this section is to minimize this effect¹).
Best regards,
Marika
On 11/01/16 20:12, "owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Johan Helsingius" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of julf@julf.com> wrote:
Hi, James, and thank you for the clarifications!
On each issue, the Council will consider the question of whether or not the harmonized statement reflects the consolidated position of the GNSO, including any conditions or unmet concerns expressed in SG/C comments. It will be a yes(Support) or no(Object) vote, with any abstentions having the effect of 'Support'.
And in case of lack of majority support, it will be 'limited support'?
One point on which we have been consistent is that the GNSO response is limited to only the CCWG Third Draft, and is not responding to comments filed by the Board or other groups. This is essential to allow the CCWG to proceed on any next (final?) draft and its work on WS2.
So we are assuming one more round of comments?
Hope this is helpful!
Very much so, thanks!
Julf
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
Hi Paul. Sorry for any confusion. The option to forego a formal vote and simply communicate our position(s) via letter to the CCWG Co-Chairs is still on the table, but some have expressed a preference for a more formal measure (and recording) of GNSO support. This discussion of how to format our response should be the first agenda item for our call on Thursday. And if it helps address the concerns of SGs and Cs, keep in mind that our objective is to capture and reflect the substance of positions already submitted during the Public Comment period. None of us are asking (or authorized) to negotiate these positions, or agree to any new or modified support conditions. We either identify & present the common GNSO positions (where apparent), or (if necessary, in the event of divergence) refer the CCWG back to the individual SG/C comments. Hope this is helpful, and looking forward to our call Thursday. Thanks— J. On 1/11/16, 16:21 , "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@winston.com> wrote:
Thanks all. I'm confused. We appear to be talking about the formal mechanisms of a vote, but I thought we left it with Thursday's call being a time to go through the "temperature taking" document that the subgroup went through and then find a mechanism to send that to the CCWG (perhaps by letter but most likely not a formal up or down vote) and that the formal up or down may come at a later date when we have the next draft from the CCWG. Is that still the plan? If not, I need to let me C know that and start to get more formal instructions than the "temperature taking" comments I have been pushing my folks for. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 6:10 PM To: Marika Konings Cc: Johan Helsingius; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report
Thanks for the correction Marika.
Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri.
On Jan 11, 2016, at 15:19, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
For the record, under the GNSO Operating Procedures an abstention actually counts as a Œno vote¹ (See section 4.5.3 - 'According to existing rules, any abstention would not contribute to the passing of a motion; therefore, by default, an abstention functions as a ³No² vote. The purpose of the remedial procedures in this section is to minimize this effect¹).
Best regards,
Marika
On 11/01/16 20:12, "owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Johan Helsingius" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of julf@julf.com> wrote:
Hi, James, and thank you for the clarifications!
On each issue, the Council will consider the question of whether or not the harmonized statement reflects the consolidated position of the GNSO, including any conditions or unmet concerns expressed in SG/C comments. It will be a yes(Support) or no(Object) vote, with any abstentions having the effect of 'Support'.
And in case of lack of majority support, it will be 'limited support'?
One point on which we have been consistent is that the GNSO response is limited to only the CCWG Third Draft, and is not responding to comments filed by the Board or other groups. This is essential to allow the CCWG to proceed on any next (final?) draft and its work on WS2.
So we are assuming one more round of comments?
Hope this is helpful!
Very much so, thanks!
Julf
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
I agree to discuss the response format at first. In this context looking at the requirements the CCWG charter is setting here might be of assistance (section V, Decision-Making Methodologies): “ SO and AC support for the Draft Proposal(s) Following submission of the Draft Proposal(s), each of the chartering organizations shall, in accordance with their own rules and procedures, review and discuss the Draft Proposal(s) and decide whether to adopt the recommendations contained in it....” For me “decision” and “adoption” means a firm answer to be provided by the SO, not just a report of the various positions within it. I’d feel more comfortable – also with regards to future reference – if in the end we had a formal vote. This could be done eg. rec. by rec. and finally about the whole package – or in any more sophisticated way. I understand that the discussion process within some SGs/Cs is not yet finished. Eg this is the case within the ISPCP constituency where we’ll have a call on Friday this week. From the ongoing CCWG discussion I’ve taken the impresseion that the timeline at the moment is a bit weak (it depends on SO/AC input for sure). Maybe tomorrow we could sort out and discuss the very last not yet agreeable recs. The formal vote could then be taken at a later stage – maybe even at the council meeting next week. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 3:35 AM To: McGrady, Paul D. ; Marika Konings Cc: Johan Helsingius ; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi Paul. Sorry for any confusion. The option to forego a formal vote and simply communicate our position(s) via letter to the CCWG Co-Chairs is still on the table, but some have expressed a preference for a more formal measure (and recording) of GNSO support. This discussion of how to format our response should be the first agenda item for our call on Thursday. And if it helps address the concerns of SGs and Cs, keep in mind that our objective is to capture and reflect the substance of positions already submitted during the Public Comment period. None of us are asking (or authorized) to negotiate these positions, or agree to any new or modified support conditions. We either identify & present the common GNSO positions (where apparent), or (if necessary, in the event of divergence) refer the CCWG back to the individual SG/C comments. Hope this is helpful, and looking forward to our call Thursday. Thanks— J. On 1/11/16, 16:21 , "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@winston.com> wrote:
Thanks all. I'm confused. We appear to be talking about the formal mechanisms of a vote, but I thought we left it with Thursday's call being a time to go through the "temperature taking" document that the subgroup went through and then find a mechanism to send that to the CCWG (perhaps by letter but most likely not a formal up or down vote) and that the formal up or down may come at a later date when we have the next draft from the CCWG. Is that still the plan? If not, I need to let me C know that and start to get more formal instructions than the "temperature taking" comments I have been pushing my folks for. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 6:10 PM To: Marika Konings Cc: Johan Helsingius; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report
Thanks for the correction Marika.
Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri.
On Jan 11, 2016, at 15:19, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
For the record, under the GNSO Operating Procedures an abstention actually counts as a Œno vote¹ (See section 4.5.3 - 'According to existing rules, any abstention would not contribute to the passing of a motion; therefore, by default, an abstention functions as a ³No² vote. The purpose of the remedial procedures in this section is to minimize this effect¹).
Best regards,
Marika
On 11/01/16 20:12, "owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Johan Helsingius" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of julf@julf.com> wrote:
Hi, James, and thank you for the clarifications!
On each issue, the Council will consider the question of whether or not the harmonized statement reflects the consolidated position of the GNSO, including any conditions or unmet concerns expressed in SG/C comments. It will be a yes(Support) or no(Object) vote, with any abstentions having the effect of 'Support'.
And in case of lack of majority support, it will be 'limited support'?
One point on which we have been consistent is that the GNSO response is limited to only the CCWG Third Draft, and is not responding to comments filed by the Board or other groups. This is essential to allow the CCWG to proceed on any next (final?) draft and its work on WS2.
So we are assuming one more round of comments?
Hope this is helpful!
Very much so, thanks!
Julf
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
Wolf-Ulrich,
Maybe tomorrow we could sort out and discuss the very last not yet agreeable recs. The formal vote could then be taken at a later stage – maybe even at the council meeting next week.
I am not entirely sure why a formal vote is needed now, assuming there will have to be one more, final(?) draft - surely what counts is the vote on the *final* version. Or am I wrong in my assumptions? Julf
I think a formal up/down/abstain=no vote at this stage would be a mistake as it might send a much more negative message to the CCWG than is the actual situation on the ground. The CCWG needs information and time to fix these draft recommendations and send them back for formal action. Even if the CCWG has requested a formal vote at this stage, and it is not clear to me that they have, I don't think the GNSO is bound to do something counterproductive even if the CCWG asked it to do so. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Johan Helsingius Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:41 AM To: WUKnoben Cc: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Wolf-Ulrich,
Maybe tomorrow we could sort out and discuss the very last not yet agreeable recs. The formal vote could then be taken at a later stage - maybe even at the council meeting next week.
I am not entirely sure why a formal vote is needed now, assuming there will have to be one more, final(?) draft - surely what counts is the vote on the *final* version. Or am I wrong in my assumptions? Julf The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
Hi, I agree that a formal vote is not absolutely needed at this stage, but I wonder whether or not a formal vote of the 3rd draft recommendations would be helpful to the CCWG. I imagine that it will draw a very clear picture of where the stakeholder groups/constituencies of one of the CCWG’s chartering organisations stand on each of the recommendations. Although these positions have probably been communicated by the appointed members from the GNSO groups, my guess would be that the members of the CCWG may still find a Council vote helpful. Just a thought. Thanks. Amr
On Jan 13, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote:
Wolf-Ulrich,
Maybe tomorrow we could sort out and discuss the very last not yet agreeable recs. The formal vote could then be taken at a later stage – maybe even at the council meeting next week.
I am not entirely sure why a formal vote is needed now, assuming there will have to be one more, final(?) draft - surely what counts is the vote on the *final* version. Or am I wrong in my assumptions?
Julf
Hi, Other chartering organisations (see, for example, ALAC: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30n... ) have given clear indications of approval / disapproval of each of the twelve recommendations, along with reasoning thereof. I'd suggest we do the same. I'm ambivalent as to whether we indicate our preferences in the form of a Motion or a letter from our Chair, but I do believe the CCWG needs the simplified guidance that only a straight up / down decision on each recommendation can give. Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:07 PM To: "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com> Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi, I agree that a formal vote is not absolutely needed at this stage, but I wonder whether or not a formal vote of the 3rd draft recommendations would be helpful to the CCWG. I imagine that it will draw a very clear picture of where the stakeholder groups/constituencies of one of the CCWG's chartering organisations stand on each of the recommendations. Although these positions have probably been communicated by the appointed members from the GNSO groups, my guess would be that the members of the CCWG may still find a Council vote helpful. Just a thought. Thanks. Amr
On Jan 13, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote:
Wolf-Ulrich,
Maybe tomorrow we could sort out and discuss the very last not yet agreeable recs. The formal vote could then be taken at a later stage - maybe even at the council meeting next week.
I am not entirely sure why a formal vote is needed now, assuming there will have to be one more, final(?) draft - surely what counts is the vote on the *final* version. Or am I wrong in my assumptions?
Julf
Thanks Ed. James, I guess we all need a definitive answer so that we can get clear instructions from our C's. Will there be an up or down vote on each Recommendation tomorrow? I think it is a fair question. Thanks! Best, Paul From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Edward Morris Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 8:49 AM To: Johan Helsingius; Amr Elsadr Cc: WUKnoben; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi, Other chartering organisations (see, for example, ALAC: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30n... ) have given clear indications of approval / disapproval of each of the twelve recommendations, along with reasoning thereof. I'd suggest we do the same. I'm ambivalent as to whether we indicate our preferences in the form of a Motion or a letter from our Chair, but I do believe the CCWG needs the simplified guidance that only a straight up / down decision on each recommendation can give. Ed ________________________________ From: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:07 PM To: "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>> Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi, I agree that a formal vote is not absolutely needed at this stage, but I wonder whether or not a formal vote of the 3rd draft recommendations would be helpful to the CCWG. I imagine that it will draw a very clear picture of where the stakeholder groups/constituencies of one of the CCWG's chartering organisations stand on each of the recommendations. Although these positions have probably been communicated by the appointed members from the GNSO groups, my guess would be that the members of the CCWG may still find a Council vote helpful. Just a thought. Thanks. Amr
On Jan 13, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>> wrote:
Wolf-Ulrich,
Maybe tomorrow we could sort out and discuss the very last not yet agreeable recs. The formal vote could then be taken at a later stage - maybe even at the council meeting next week.
I am not entirely sure why a formal vote is needed now, assuming there will have to be one more, final(?) draft - surely what counts is the vote on the *final* version. Or am I wrong in my assumptions?
Julf
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
On 13/01/16 15:42, Edward Morris wrote:
I do believe the CCWG needs the simplified guidance that only a straight up / down decision on each recommendation can give.
I guess it is at least useful for the CCWG to be able to identify the parts everybody agree on. Julf
You may also be interested to see the approach the ccNSO Council took in their comments on the third draft proposal: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-draft-3-proposal-07jan16-en.pdf. Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Reply-To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Date: Wednesday 13 January 2016 at 15:42 To: Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Cc: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi, Other chartering organisations (see, for example, ALAC: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30n... ) have given clear indications of approval / disapproval of each of the twelve recommendations, along with reasoning thereof. I'd suggest we do the same. I'm ambivalent as to whether we indicate our preferences in the form of a Motion or a letter from our Chair, but I do believe the CCWG needs the simplified guidance that only a straight up / down decision on each recommendation can give. Ed ________________________________ From: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:07 PM To: "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>> Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi, I agree that a formal vote is not absolutely needed at this stage, but I wonder whether or not a formal vote of the 3rd draft recommendations would be helpful to the CCWG. I imagine that it will draw a very clear picture of where the stakeholder groups/constituencies of one of the CCWG's chartering organisations stand on each of the recommendations. Although these positions have probably been communicated by the appointed members from the GNSO groups, my guess would be that the members of the CCWG may still find a Council vote helpful. Just a thought. Thanks. Amr
On Jan 13, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>> wrote:
Wolf-Ulrich,
Maybe tomorrow we could sort out and discuss the very last not yet agreeable recs. The formal vote could then be taken at a later stage - maybe even at the council meeting next week.
I am not entirely sure why a formal vote is needed now, assuming there will have to be one more, final(?) draft - surely what counts is the vote on the *final* version. Or am I wrong in my assumptions?
Julf
Hi Marika, Thanks for this. That certainly is an approach we could take but I question it's overall utility to those of us in the CCWG who are attempting to put together a proposal all of the chartering organisations can support. I would refer everyone to the CCWG Charter ( ), specifically: --- SO and AC support for the Draft Proposal(s) Following submission of the Draft Proposal(s), each of the chartering organizations shall, in accordance with their own rules and procedures, review and discuss the Draft Proposal(s) and decide whether to adopt the recommendations contained in it. The chairs of the chartering organizations shall notify the co-chairs of the WG of the result of the deliberations as soon as feasible. Supplemental Draft Proposal In the event that one or more of the participating SO's or AC's do(es) not adopt one or more of the recommendation(s) contained in the Draft Proposal(s), the Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability shall be notified accordingly. This notification shall include at a minimum the reasons for the lack of support and a suggested alternative that would be acceptable, if any. The CCWG-Accountability may, at its discretion, reconsider, post for public comments and/or submit to the chartering organizations a Supplemental Draft Proposal, which takes into accounting the concerns raised. Following submission of the Supplemental Draft Proposal, the chartering organizations shall discuss and decide in accordance with its own rules and procedures whether to adopt the recommendations contained in the Supplemental Draft Proposal. The Chairs of the chartering organizations shall notify the Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability of the result of the deliberations as soon as feasible. --- With the exception of its referral to the CWG requirements, I don't find the CCNSO response to be particularly helpful. Provisional support of the "direction of travel" doesn't tell the CCWG if we need to change some specifics of any of our recommendations. If the CCNSO is prepared to support all the recommendations save those related to the CWG they should say so. What we're trying to avoid is a situation where only on the final vote of approval / disapproval do we become aware of a Chartering organisations problems with a specific recommendation. As I understand things, that actually is the purpose of the special attention being paid to the Chartering organisations in this round of public comments. Although there are some tweaks that probably should be made, I do largely support the work of the Council sub-team and the result of their efforts and hope that is the basis of our discussion and response. Best, Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 3:39 PM To: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@toast.net>, "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com>, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report You may also be interested to see the approach the ccNSO Council took in their comments on the third draft proposal: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-draft-3-proposal-07jan16-en.pdf. Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> Reply-To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> Date: Wednesday 13 January 2016 at 15:42 To: Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Cc: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi, Other chartering organisations (see, for example, ALAC: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30n... ) have given clear indications of approval / disapproval of each of the twelve recommendations, along with reasoning thereof. I'd suggest we do the same. I'm ambivalent as to whether we indicate our preferences in the form of a Motion or a letter from our Chair, but I do believe the CCWG needs the simplified guidance that only a straight up / down decision on each recommendation can give. Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:07 PM To: "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com> Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi, I agree that a formal vote is not absolutely needed at this stage, but I wonder whether or not a formal vote of the 3rd draft recommendations would be helpful to the CCWG. I imagine that it will draw a very clear picture of where the stakeholder groups/constituencies of one of the CCWG's chartering organisations stand on each of the recommendations. Although these positions have probably been communicated by the appointed members from the GNSO groups, my guess would be that the members of the CCWG may still find a Council vote helpful. Just a thought. Thanks. Amr
On Jan 13, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote:
Wolf-Ulrich,
Maybe tomorrow we could sort out and discuss the very last not yet agreeable recs. The formal vote could then be taken at a later stage - maybe even at the council meeting next week.
I am not entirely sure why a formal vote is needed now, assuming there will have to be one more, final(?) draft - surely what counts is the vote on the *final* version. Or am I wrong in my assumptions?
Julf
Thanks, Ed. I didn’t mean to imply that the ccNSO response was the way to go, I thought it just might be of interest to see how other chartering organisations in addition to the ALAC approached it. As a point of clarification, are you suggesting that an up / down vote would be taken on the response provided by the sub-team, not necessarily the recommendations themselves? I thought you were suggesting the latter in your initial email, but your last paragraph in this section makes me think you are suggesting the former? Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Reply-To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Date: Wednesday 13 January 2016 at 17:16 To: Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi Marika, Thanks for this. That certainly is an approach we could take but I question it's overall utility to those of us in the CCWG who are attempting to put together a proposal all of the chartering organisations can support. I would refer everyone to the CCWG Charter ( ), specifically: --- SO and AC support for the Draft Proposal(s) Following submission of the Draft Proposal(s), each of the chartering organizations shall, in accordance with their own rules and procedures, review and discuss the Draft Proposal(s) and decide whether to adopt the recommendations contained in it. The chairs of the chartering organizations shall notify the co-chairs of the WG of the result of the deliberations as soon as feasible. Supplemental Draft Proposal In the event that one or more of the participating SO’s or AC’s do(es) not adopt one or more of the recommendation(s) contained in the Draft Proposal(s), the Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability shall be notified accordingly. This notification shall include at a minimum the reasons for the lack of support and a suggested alternative that would be acceptable, if any. The CCWG-Accountability may, at its discretion, reconsider, post for public comments and/or submit to the chartering organizations a Supplemental Draft Proposal, which takes into accounting the concerns raised. Following submission of the Supplemental Draft Proposal, the chartering organizations shall discuss and decide in accordance with its own rules and procedures whether to adopt the recommendations contained in the Supplemental Draft Proposal. The Chairs of the chartering organizations shall notify the Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability of the result of the deliberations as soon as feasible. --- With the exception of its referral to the CWG requirements, I don't find the CCNSO response to be particularly helpful. Provisional support of the "direction of travel" doesn't tell the CCWG if we need to change some specifics of any of our recommendations. If the CCNSO is prepared to support all the recommendations save those related to the CWG they should say so. What we're trying to avoid is a situation where only on the final vote of approval / disapproval do we become aware of a Chartering organisations problems with a specific recommendation. As I understand things, that actually is the purpose of the special attention being paid to the Chartering organisations in this round of public comments. Although there are some tweaks that probably should be made, I do largely support the work of the Council sub-team and the result of their efforts and hope that is the basis of our discussion and response. Best, Ed ________________________________ From: "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 3:39 PM To: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>>, "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>>, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report You may also be interested to see the approach the ccNSO Council took in their comments on the third draft proposal: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-draft-3-proposal-07jan16-en.pdf. Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Reply-To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Date: Wednesday 13 January 2016 at 15:42 To: Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Cc: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi, Other chartering organisations (see, for example, ALAC: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30n... ) have given clear indications of approval / disapproval of each of the twelve recommendations, along with reasoning thereof. I'd suggest we do the same. I'm ambivalent as to whether we indicate our preferences in the form of a Motion or a letter from our Chair, but I do believe the CCWG needs the simplified guidance that only a straight up / down decision on each recommendation can give. Ed ________________________________ From: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:07 PM To: "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>> Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi, I agree that a formal vote is not absolutely needed at this stage, but I wonder whether or not a formal vote of the 3rd draft recommendations would be helpful to the CCWG. I imagine that it will draw a very clear picture of where the stakeholder groups/constituencies of one of the CCWG’s chartering organisations stand on each of the recommendations. Although these positions have probably been communicated by the appointed members from the GNSO groups, my guess would be that the members of the CCWG may still find a Council vote helpful. Just a thought. Thanks. Amr
On Jan 13, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>> wrote:
Wolf-Ulrich,
Maybe tomorrow we could sort out and discuss the very last not yet agreeable recs. The formal vote could then be taken at a later stage – maybe even at the council meeting next week.
I am not entirely sure why a formal vote is needed now, assuming there will have to be one more, final(?) draft - surely what counts is the vote on the *final* version. Or am I wrong in my assumptions?
Julf
Hi Marika, I'm very appreciative of your efforts to make us aware of the approach the CCNSO took. We need all the input we can get. Now if you could do the same for the GAC I think we all would be double appreciative! (we're still waiting for some smoke signals from our government colleagues). I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I definitely think we should be taking an up and down vote on each of the recommendations. I referenced the sub-teams work only to suggest that format - response by recommendation - be used going forward. Thanks for letting me know that I wasn't clear and giving me the chance to clear up any misunderstanding. Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 4:27 PM To: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@toast.net>, "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com>, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Thanks, Ed. I didn't mean to imply that the ccNSO response was the way to go, I thought it just might be of interest to see how other chartering organisations in addition to the ALAC approached it. As a point of clarification, are you suggesting that an up / down vote would be taken on the response provided by the sub-team, not necessarily the recommendations themselves? I thought you were suggesting the latter in your initial email, but your last paragraph in this section makes me think you are suggesting the former? Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> Reply-To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> Date: Wednesday 13 January 2016 at 17:16 To: Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi Marika, Thanks for this. That certainly is an approach we could take but I question it's overall utility to those of us in the CCWG who are attempting to put together a proposal all of the chartering organisations can support. I would refer everyone to the CCWG Charter ( ), specifically: --- SO and AC support for the Draft Proposal(s) Following submission of the Draft Proposal(s), each of the chartering organizations shall, in accordance with their own rules and procedures, review and discuss the Draft Proposal(s) and decide whether to adopt the recommendations contained in it. The chairs of the chartering organizations shall notify the co-chairs of the WG of the result of the deliberations as soon as feasible. Supplemental Draft Proposal In the event that one or more of the participating SO's or AC's do(es) not adopt one or more of the recommendation(s) contained in the Draft Proposal(s), the Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability shall be notified accordingly. This notification shall include at a minimum the reasons for the lack of support and a suggested alternative that would be acceptable, if any. The CCWG-Accountability may, at its discretion, reconsider, post for public comments and/or submit to the chartering organizations a Supplemental Draft Proposal, which takes into accounting the concerns raised. Following submission of the Supplemental Draft Proposal, the chartering organizations shall discuss and decide in accordance with its own rules and procedures whether to adopt the recommendations contained in the Supplemental Draft Proposal. The Chairs of the chartering organizations shall notify the Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability of the result of the deliberations as soon as feasible. --- With the exception of its referral to the CWG requirements, I don't find the CCNSO response to be particularly helpful. Provisional support of the "direction of travel" doesn't tell the CCWG if we need to change some specifics of any of our recommendations. If the CCNSO is prepared to support all the recommendations save those related to the CWG they should say so. What we're trying to avoid is a situation where only on the final vote of approval / disapproval do we become aware of a Chartering organisations problems with a specific recommendation. As I understand things, that actually is the purpose of the special attention being paid to the Chartering organisations in this round of public comments. Although there are some tweaks that probably should be made, I do largely support the work of the Council sub-team and the result of their efforts and hope that is the basis of our discussion and response. Best, Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 3:39 PM To: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@toast.net>, "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com>, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report You may also be interested to see the approach the ccNSO Council took in their comments on the third draft proposal: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-draft-3-proposal-07jan16-en.pdf. Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> Reply-To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> Date: Wednesday 13 January 2016 at 15:42 To: Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Cc: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi, Other chartering organisations (see, for example, ALAC: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30n... ) have given clear indications of approval / disapproval of each of the twelve recommendations, along with reasoning thereof. I'd suggest we do the same. I'm ambivalent as to whether we indicate our preferences in the form of a Motion or a letter from our Chair, but I do believe the CCWG needs the simplified guidance that only a straight up / down decision on each recommendation can give. Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:07 PM To: "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com> Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi, I agree that a formal vote is not absolutely needed at this stage, but I wonder whether or not a formal vote of the 3rd draft recommendations would be helpful to the CCWG. I imagine that it will draw a very clear picture of where the stakeholder groups/constituencies of one of the CCWG's chartering organisations stand on each of the recommendations. Although these positions have probably been communicated by the appointed members from the GNSO groups, my guess would be that the members of the CCWG may still find a Council vote helpful. Just a thought. Thanks. Amr
On Jan 13, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote:
Wolf-Ulrich,
Maybe tomorrow we could sort out and discuss the very last not yet agreeable recs. The formal vote could then be taken at a later stage - maybe even at the council meeting next week.
I am not entirely sure why a formal vote is needed now, assuming there will have to be one more, final(?) draft - surely what counts is the vote on the *final* version. Or am I wrong in my assumptions?
Julf
Colleagues: The discussion around this has been extremely valuable, and big thanks for all of those who weighed in. I apologize for taking so long to weigh in, but I was watching some of the keynote speeches here at NamesCon (include Paul’s. Nice job!). In any event, my thoughts are below. What is the purpose of tomorrow’s call? The GNSO Council will send its unified position on the CCWG-Accountability recommendations to the co-chairs of the CCWG. We will achieve this by reviewing, discussing and approving the Consolidated document that was prepared by the SubTeam. Should we do this now, or wait for the final CCWG Recommendations? It seems increasingly likely that there will be a new set of modified CCWG Recommendations in the near future. However, if we want to help shape the next report to ensure it reflects the views of the GNSO Community, we need to comment on this set of Recommendations now. Doing so will also provide guidance & support to the GNSO members of the CCWG-ACCT in their work to drive the best outcomes. Are we voting, or drafting a letter, or what? This is an open question for tomorrow’s call. Some have indicated a preference for a less formal (letter) response, similar to what we’ve seen from the ccNSO. Others have noted that something this important would benefit from an itemized expression of support/non-support. The CCWG co-chairs, and the CCWG charter, appear to favor the latter, and certainly a formal vote will be required for the Final Recommendations. My hope is that we are able to resolve this tomorrow, but if necessary we can vote on whether or not we need to vote (!). If we do vote, then what is the vote about? What are we voting on? How will this go down? If we proceed with a vote, then the Councilors will be asked whether or not they agree with the Subteam’s analysis & consolidation of the public comments filed by the SGs and CS. In other words, we will be voting on the —language— of the response, NOT the response itself. Example: If the Subteam reports that the GNSO opposes a recommendation, a “Yes” vote will agree with that statement of GNSO opposition, not the recommendation itself. Hopefully this will become clearer tomorrow as we walk through the document. What if we can’t agree? If we cannot reach consensus (either via discussion or voting) on the GNSO response to any recommendation, then we will refer the CCWG Co-Chairs back to the individual comments filed by the SGs and Cs. I believe there are a few (2-3) areas in the report where this may be the case. But generally speaking, the Subteam found a great deal of overlap in SG/C positions, and when those comments included qualifiers or conditions, those were usually not in conflict. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Reply-To: "egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>" <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Date: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 8:40 To: Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi Marika, I'm very appreciative of your efforts to make us aware of the approach the CCNSO took. We need all the input we can get. Now if you could do the same for the GAC I think we all would be double appreciative! (we're still waiting for some smoke signals from our government colleagues). I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I definitely think we should be taking an up and down vote on each of the recommendations. I referenced the sub-teams work only to suggest that format - response by recommendation - be used going forward. Thanks for letting me know that I wasn't clear and giving me the chance to clear up any misunderstanding. Ed ________________________________ From: "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 4:27 PM To: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>>, "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>>, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Thanks, Ed. I didn’t mean to imply that the ccNSO response was the way to go, I thought it just might be of interest to see how other chartering organisations in addition to the ALAC approached it. As a point of clarification, are you suggesting that an up / down vote would be taken on the response provided by the sub-team, not necessarily the recommendations themselves? I thought you were suggesting the latter in your initial email, but your last paragraph in this section makes me think you are suggesting the former? Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Reply-To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Date: Wednesday 13 January 2016 at 17:16 To: Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi Marika, Thanks for this. That certainly is an approach we could take but I question it's overall utility to those of us in the CCWG who are attempting to put together a proposal all of the chartering organisations can support. I would refer everyone to the CCWG Charter ( ), specifically: --- SO and AC support for the Draft Proposal(s) Following submission of the Draft Proposal(s), each of the chartering organizations shall, in accordance with their own rules and procedures, review and discuss the Draft Proposal(s) and decide whether to adopt the recommendations contained in it. The chairs of the chartering organizations shall notify the co-chairs of the WG of the result of the deliberations as soon as feasible. Supplemental Draft Proposal In the event that one or more of the participating SO’s or AC’s do(es) not adopt one or more of the recommendation(s) contained in the Draft Proposal(s), the Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability shall be notified accordingly. This notification shall include at a minimum the reasons for the lack of support and a suggested alternative that would be acceptable, if any. The CCWG-Accountability may, at its discretion, reconsider, post for public comments and/or submit to the chartering organizations a Supplemental Draft Proposal, which takes into accounting the concerns raised. Following submission of the Supplemental Draft Proposal, the chartering organizations shall discuss and decide in accordance with its own rules and procedures whether to adopt the recommendations contained in the Supplemental Draft Proposal. The Chairs of the chartering organizations shall notify the Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability of the result of the deliberations as soon as feasible. --- With the exception of its referral to the CWG requirements, I don't find the CCNSO response to be particularly helpful. Provisional support of the "direction of travel" doesn't tell the CCWG if we need to change some specifics of any of our recommendations. If the CCNSO is prepared to support all the recommendations save those related to the CWG they should say so. What we're trying to avoid is a situation where only on the final vote of approval / disapproval do we become aware of a Chartering organisations problems with a specific recommendation. As I understand things, that actually is the purpose of the special attention being paid to the Chartering organisations in this round of public comments. Although there are some tweaks that probably should be made, I do largely support the work of the Council sub-team and the result of their efforts and hope that is the basis of our discussion and response. Best, Ed ________________________________ From: "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 3:39 PM To: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>>, "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>>, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report You may also be interested to see the approach the ccNSO Council took in their comments on the third draft proposal: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-draft-3-proposal-07jan16-en.pdf. Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Reply-To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Date: Wednesday 13 January 2016 at 15:42 To: Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Cc: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi, Other chartering organisations (see, for example, ALAC: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30n... ) have given clear indications of approval / disapproval of each of the twelve recommendations, along with reasoning thereof. I'd suggest we do the same. I'm ambivalent as to whether we indicate our preferences in the form of a Motion or a letter from our Chair, but I do believe the CCWG needs the simplified guidance that only a straight up / down decision on each recommendation can give. Ed ________________________________ From: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:07 PM To: "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>> Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi, I agree that a formal vote is not absolutely needed at this stage, but I wonder whether or not a formal vote of the 3rd draft recommendations would be helpful to the CCWG. I imagine that it will draw a very clear picture of where the stakeholder groups/constituencies of one of the CCWG’s chartering organisations stand on each of the recommendations. Although these positions have probably been communicated by the appointed members from the GNSO groups, my guess would be that the members of the CCWG may still find a Council vote helpful. Just a thought. Thanks. Amr
On Jan 13, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>> wrote:
Wolf-Ulrich,
Maybe tomorrow we could sort out and discuss the very last not yet agreeable recs. The formal vote could then be taken at a later stage – maybe even at the council meeting next week.
I am not entirely sure why a formal vote is needed now, assuming there will have to be one more, final(?) draft - surely what counts is the vote on the *final* version. Or am I wrong in my assumptions?
Julf
Thanks James. I guess I just don't know what the vote is for. I suppose that I could vote "yes" that the IPC's point of view is captured in the summary document or "no" that it is not, but I'm not sure how that is helpful since we could perhaps wordsmith the document until we have all "yeses." However, we can't conflate that sort of "yes" vote with yeses on the Recommendations-as-currently-drafted themselves. My concern is that if the Council gives a "yes" vote indicating that the positions in the summary document reflect the point of view of the C's & SG's, that by the time that reaches the CCWG or the trade press it could be confused as that the GNSO voted "yes" on specific Recommendations and with the entire concept generally. I think that even if we "work it out" on the call as described below, we still need the required notice to go back to the C's and SG's we represent to tell them what the final resolution is and to get instructions yea or nay. Can tomorrow's call be a working call and can we then do the more formal vote, on whatever the proposed resolution is, on the 21st? Best, Paul From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 1:59 PM To: egmorris1@toast.net; Johan Helsingius; Amr Elsadr; Marika Konings Cc: WUKnoben; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Colleagues: The discussion around this has been extremely valuable, and big thanks for all of those who weighed in. I apologize for taking so long to weigh in, but I was watching some of the keynote speeches here at NamesCon (include Paul's. Nice job!). In any event, my thoughts are below. What is the purpose of tomorrow's call? The GNSO Council will send its unified position on the CCWG-Accountability recommendations to the co-chairs of the CCWG. We will achieve this by reviewing, discussing and approving the Consolidated document that was prepared by the SubTeam. Should we do this now, or wait for the final CCWG Recommendations? It seems increasingly likely that there will be a new set of modified CCWG Recommendations in the near future. However, if we want to help shape the next report to ensure it reflects the views of the GNSO Community, we need to comment on this set of Recommendations now. Doing so will also provide guidance & support to the GNSO members of the CCWG-ACCT in their work to drive the best outcomes. Are we voting, or drafting a letter, or what? This is an open question for tomorrow's call. Some have indicated a preference for a less formal (letter) response, similar to what we've seen from the ccNSO. Others have noted that something this important would benefit from an itemized expression of support/non-support. The CCWG co-chairs, and the CCWG charter, appear to favor the latter, and certainly a formal vote will be required for the Final Recommendations. My hope is that we are able to resolve this tomorrow, but if necessary we can vote on whether or not we need to vote (!). If we do vote, then what is the vote about? What are we voting on? How will this go down? If we proceed with a vote, then the Councilors will be asked whether or not they agree with the Subteam's analysis & consolidation of the public comments filed by the SGs and CS. In other words, we will be voting on the -language- of the response, NOT the response itself. Example: If the Subteam reports that the GNSO opposes a recommendation, a "Yes" vote will agree with that statement of GNSO opposition, not the recommendation itself. Hopefully this will become clearer tomorrow as we walk through the document. What if we can't agree? If we cannot reach consensus (either via discussion or voting) on the GNSO response to any recommendation, then we will refer the CCWG Co-Chairs back to the individual comments filed by the SGs and Cs. I believe there are a few (2-3) areas in the report where this may be the case. But generally speaking, the Subteam found a great deal of overlap in SG/C positions, and when those comments included qualifiers or conditions, those were usually not in conflict. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Reply-To: "egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>" <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Date: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 8:40 To: Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi Marika, I'm very appreciative of your efforts to make us aware of the approach the CCNSO took. We need all the input we can get. Now if you could do the same for the GAC I think we all would be double appreciative! (we're still waiting for some smoke signals from our government colleagues). I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I definitely think we should be taking an up and down vote on each of the recommendations. I referenced the sub-teams work only to suggest that format - response by recommendation - be used going forward. Thanks for letting me know that I wasn't clear and giving me the chance to clear up any misunderstanding. Ed ________________________________ From: "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 4:27 PM To: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>>, "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>>, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Thanks, Ed. I didn't mean to imply that the ccNSO response was the way to go, I thought it just might be of interest to see how other chartering organisations in addition to the ALAC approached it. As a point of clarification, are you suggesting that an up / down vote would be taken on the response provided by the sub-team, not necessarily the recommendations themselves? I thought you were suggesting the latter in your initial email, but your last paragraph in this section makes me think you are suggesting the former? Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Reply-To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Date: Wednesday 13 January 2016 at 17:16 To: Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi Marika, Thanks for this. That certainly is an approach we could take but I question it's overall utility to those of us in the CCWG who are attempting to put together a proposal all of the chartering organisations can support. I would refer everyone to the CCWG Charter ( ), specifically: --- SO and AC support for the Draft Proposal(s) Following submission of the Draft Proposal(s), each of the chartering organizations shall, in accordance with their own rules and procedures, review and discuss the Draft Proposal(s) and decide whether to adopt the recommendations contained in it. The chairs of the chartering organizations shall notify the co-chairs of the WG of the result of the deliberations as soon as feasible. Supplemental Draft Proposal In the event that one or more of the participating SO's or AC's do(es) not adopt one or more of the recommendation(s) contained in the Draft Proposal(s), the Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability shall be notified accordingly. This notification shall include at a minimum the reasons for the lack of support and a suggested alternative that would be acceptable, if any. The CCWG-Accountability may, at its discretion, reconsider, post for public comments and/or submit to the chartering organizations a Supplemental Draft Proposal, which takes into accounting the concerns raised. Following submission of the Supplemental Draft Proposal, the chartering organizations shall discuss and decide in accordance with its own rules and procedures whether to adopt the recommendations contained in the Supplemental Draft Proposal. The Chairs of the chartering organizations shall notify the Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability of the result of the deliberations as soon as feasible. --- With the exception of its referral to the CWG requirements, I don't find the CCNSO response to be particularly helpful. Provisional support of the "direction of travel" doesn't tell the CCWG if we need to change some specifics of any of our recommendations. If the CCNSO is prepared to support all the recommendations save those related to the CWG they should say so. What we're trying to avoid is a situation where only on the final vote of approval / disapproval do we become aware of a Chartering organisations problems with a specific recommendation. As I understand things, that actually is the purpose of the special attention being paid to the Chartering organisations in this round of public comments. Although there are some tweaks that probably should be made, I do largely support the work of the Council sub-team and the result of their efforts and hope that is the basis of our discussion and response. Best, Ed ________________________________ From: "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 3:39 PM To: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>>, "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>>, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report You may also be interested to see the approach the ccNSO Council took in their comments on the third draft proposal: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-draft-3-proposal-07jan16-en.pdf. Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Reply-To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Date: Wednesday 13 January 2016 at 15:42 To: Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Cc: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi, Other chartering organisations (see, for example, ALAC: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30n... ) have given clear indications of approval / disapproval of each of the twelve recommendations, along with reasoning thereof. I'd suggest we do the same. I'm ambivalent as to whether we indicate our preferences in the form of a Motion or a letter from our Chair, but I do believe the CCWG needs the simplified guidance that only a straight up / down decision on each recommendation can give. Ed ________________________________ From: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:07 PM To: "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>> Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi, I agree that a formal vote is not absolutely needed at this stage, but I wonder whether or not a formal vote of the 3rd draft recommendations would be helpful to the CCWG. I imagine that it will draw a very clear picture of where the stakeholder groups/constituencies of one of the CCWG's chartering organisations stand on each of the recommendations. Although these positions have probably been communicated by the appointed members from the GNSO groups, my guess would be that the members of the CCWG may still find a Council vote helpful. Just a thought. Thanks. Amr
On Jan 13, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>> wrote:
Wolf-Ulrich,
Maybe tomorrow we could sort out and discuss the very last not yet agreeable recs. The formal vote could then be taken at a later stage - maybe even at the council meeting next week.
I am not entirely sure why a formal vote is needed now, assuming there will have to be one more, final(?) draft - surely what counts is the vote on the *final* version. Or am I wrong in my assumptions?
Julf
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
James, thanks for this clear and concise explanation. I agree with your assessment on process. I would like to raise a question about the "No Support" for Recommendation 11 in our draft communication. I understand there is opposition to the 2/3 threshold increase, but Recommendation 11 is broader than that...it also incorporates the threshold definition of GAC consensus advice (no formal opposition) into the bylaws, which is something very positive for all of us in the GNSO. Do we really want to signal "no support" for the entire recommendation, or should we perhaps make it "limited support with some opposition?" I'm a bit concerned that we'd be sending an inaccurate signal to the CCWG if it was left as simply "no support." For the record, the RySG understands that Recommendation 11 is a package and we suggested new provisions if the 2/3 language were to remain. We would be happy to see the 2/3 threshold reversed, but we did not signal "no support" on Rec-11 in our written comments to the CCWG. Happy to discuss further on the upcoming Council call. Regards, Keith From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:54 PM To: egmorris1@toast.net; Johan Helsingius; Amr Elsadr; Marika Konings Cc: WUKnoben; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Colleagues: The discussion around this has been extremely valuable, and big thanks for all of those who weighed in. I apologize for taking so long to weigh in, but I was watching some of the keynote speeches here at NamesCon (include Paul's. Nice job!). In any event, my thoughts are below. What is the purpose of tomorrow's call? The GNSO Council will send its unified position on the CCWG-Accountability recommendations to the co-chairs of the CCWG. We will achieve this by reviewing, discussing and approving the Consolidated document that was prepared by the SubTeam. Should we do this now, or wait for the final CCWG Recommendations? It seems increasingly likely that there will be a new set of modified CCWG Recommendations in the near future. However, if we want to help shape the next report to ensure it reflects the views of the GNSO Community, we need to comment on this set of Recommendations now. Doing so will also provide guidance & support to the GNSO members of the CCWG-ACCT in their work to drive the best outcomes. Are we voting, or drafting a letter, or what? This is an open question for tomorrow's call. Some have indicated a preference for a less formal (letter) response, similar to what we've seen from the ccNSO. Others have noted that something this important would benefit from an itemized expression of support/non-support. The CCWG co-chairs, and the CCWG charter, appear to favor the latter, and certainly a formal vote will be required for the Final Recommendations. My hope is that we are able to resolve this tomorrow, but if necessary we can vote on whether or not we need to vote (!). If we do vote, then what is the vote about? What are we voting on? How will this go down? If we proceed with a vote, then the Councilors will be asked whether or not they agree with the Subteam's analysis & consolidation of the public comments filed by the SGs and CS. In other words, we will be voting on the -language- of the response, NOT the response itself. Example: If the Subteam reports that the GNSO opposes a recommendation, a "Yes" vote will agree with that statement of GNSO opposition, not the recommendation itself. Hopefully this will become clearer tomorrow as we walk through the document. What if we can't agree? If we cannot reach consensus (either via discussion or voting) on the GNSO response to any recommendation, then we will refer the CCWG Co-Chairs back to the individual comments filed by the SGs and Cs. I believe there are a few (2-3) areas in the report where this may be the case. But generally speaking, the Subteam found a great deal of overlap in SG/C positions, and when those comments included qualifiers or conditions, those were usually not in conflict. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Reply-To: "egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>" <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Date: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 8:40 To: Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi Marika, I'm very appreciative of your efforts to make us aware of the approach the CCNSO took. We need all the input we can get. Now if you could do the same for the GAC I think we all would be double appreciative! (we're still waiting for some smoke signals from our government colleagues). I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I definitely think we should be taking an up and down vote on each of the recommendations. I referenced the sub-teams work only to suggest that format - response by recommendation - be used going forward. Thanks for letting me know that I wasn't clear and giving me the chance to clear up any misunderstanding. Ed ________________________________ From: "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 4:27 PM To: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>>, "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>>, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Thanks, Ed. I didn't mean to imply that the ccNSO response was the way to go, I thought it just might be of interest to see how other chartering organisations in addition to the ALAC approached it. As a point of clarification, are you suggesting that an up / down vote would be taken on the response provided by the sub-team, not necessarily the recommendations themselves? I thought you were suggesting the latter in your initial email, but your last paragraph in this section makes me think you are suggesting the former? Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Reply-To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Date: Wednesday 13 January 2016 at 17:16 To: Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi Marika, Thanks for this. That certainly is an approach we could take but I question it's overall utility to those of us in the CCWG who are attempting to put together a proposal all of the chartering organisations can support. I would refer everyone to the CCWG Charter ( ), specifically: --- SO and AC support for the Draft Proposal(s) Following submission of the Draft Proposal(s), each of the chartering organizations shall, in accordance with their own rules and procedures, review and discuss the Draft Proposal(s) and decide whether to adopt the recommendations contained in it. The chairs of the chartering organizations shall notify the co-chairs of the WG of the result of the deliberations as soon as feasible. Supplemental Draft Proposal In the event that one or more of the participating SO's or AC's do(es) not adopt one or more of the recommendation(s) contained in the Draft Proposal(s), the Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability shall be notified accordingly. This notification shall include at a minimum the reasons for the lack of support and a suggested alternative that would be acceptable, if any. The CCWG-Accountability may, at its discretion, reconsider, post for public comments and/or submit to the chartering organizations a Supplemental Draft Proposal, which takes into accounting the concerns raised. Following submission of the Supplemental Draft Proposal, the chartering organizations shall discuss and decide in accordance with its own rules and procedures whether to adopt the recommendations contained in the Supplemental Draft Proposal. The Chairs of the chartering organizations shall notify the Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability of the result of the deliberations as soon as feasible. --- With the exception of its referral to the CWG requirements, I don't find the CCNSO response to be particularly helpful. Provisional support of the "direction of travel" doesn't tell the CCWG if we need to change some specifics of any of our recommendations. If the CCNSO is prepared to support all the recommendations save those related to the CWG they should say so. What we're trying to avoid is a situation where only on the final vote of approval / disapproval do we become aware of a Chartering organisations problems with a specific recommendation. As I understand things, that actually is the purpose of the special attention being paid to the Chartering organisations in this round of public comments. Although there are some tweaks that probably should be made, I do largely support the work of the Council sub-team and the result of their efforts and hope that is the basis of our discussion and response. Best, Ed ________________________________ From: "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 3:39 PM To: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>>, "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>>, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report You may also be interested to see the approach the ccNSO Council took in their comments on the third draft proposal: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-draft-3-proposal-07jan16-en.pdf. Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Reply-To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Date: Wednesday 13 January 2016 at 15:42 To: Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Cc: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi, Other chartering organisations (see, for example, ALAC: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30n... ) have given clear indications of approval / disapproval of each of the twelve recommendations, along with reasoning thereof. I'd suggest we do the same. I'm ambivalent as to whether we indicate our preferences in the form of a Motion or a letter from our Chair, but I do believe the CCWG needs the simplified guidance that only a straight up / down decision on each recommendation can give. Ed ________________________________ From: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:07 PM To: "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>> Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi, I agree that a formal vote is not absolutely needed at this stage, but I wonder whether or not a formal vote of the 3rd draft recommendations would be helpful to the CCWG. I imagine that it will draw a very clear picture of where the stakeholder groups/constituencies of one of the CCWG's chartering organisations stand on each of the recommendations. Although these positions have probably been communicated by the appointed members from the GNSO groups, my guess would be that the members of the CCWG may still find a Council vote helpful. Just a thought. Thanks. Amr
On Jan 13, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>> wrote:
Wolf-Ulrich,
Maybe tomorrow we could sort out and discuss the very last not yet agreeable recs. The formal vote could then be taken at a later stage - maybe even at the council meeting next week.
I am not entirely sure why a formal vote is needed now, assuming there will have to be one more, final(?) draft - surely what counts is the vote on the *final* version. Or am I wrong in my assumptions?
Julf
All, at first my thanks to the team who undertook this effort of evaluation. As I see there are 5 levels of support suggested: a.. General Support b.. General Support with qualifications c.. General Support with (possibly divergent) Conditions d.. Limited Support with some opposition e.. No support Questions for understanding: a.. did I put it in the right row (up – down)? b.. would you explain the differences? c.. what does “general support” mean? It looks like a restriction/limitation if it doesn’t mean “full support”. Why not just saying “support”? I’m inclined to join Keith’s concerns re the rating for rec #11. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Drazek, Keith Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 7:56 AM To: James M. Bladel ; egmorris1@toast.net ; Johan Helsingius ; Amr Elsadr ; Marika Konings Cc: WUKnoben ; GNSO Council List Subject: RE: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report James, thanks for this clear and concise explanation. I agree with your assessment on process. I would like to raise a question about the “No Support” for Recommendation 11 in our draft communication. I understand there is opposition to the 2/3 threshold increase, but Recommendation 11 is broader than that…it also incorporates the threshold definition of GAC consensus advice (no formal opposition) into the bylaws, which is something very positive for all of us in the GNSO. Do we really want to signal “no support” for the entire recommendation, or should we perhaps make it “limited support with some opposition?” I’m a bit concerned that we’d be sending an inaccurate signal to the CCWG if it was left as simply “no support.” For the record, the RySG understands that Recommendation 11 is a package and we suggested new provisions if the 2/3 language were to remain. We would be happy to see the 2/3 threshold reversed, but we did not signal “no support” on Rec-11 in our written comments to the CCWG. Happy to discuss further on the upcoming Council call. Regards, Keith From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:54 PM To: egmorris1@toast.net; Johan Helsingius; Amr Elsadr; Marika Konings Cc: WUKnoben; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Colleagues: The discussion around this has been extremely valuable, and big thanks for all of those who weighed in. I apologize for taking so long to weigh in, but I was watching some of the keynote speeches here at NamesCon (include Paul’s. Nice job!). In any event, my thoughts are below. What is the purpose of tomorrow’s call? The GNSO Council will send its unified position on the CCWG-Accountability recommendations to the co-chairs of the CCWG. We will achieve this by reviewing, discussing and approving the Consolidated document that was prepared by the SubTeam. Should we do this now, or wait for the final CCWG Recommendations? It seems increasingly likely that there will be a new set of modified CCWG Recommendations in the near future. However, if we want to help shape the next report to ensure it reflects the views of the GNSO Community, we need to comment on this set of Recommendations now. Doing so will also provide guidance & support to the GNSO members of the CCWG-ACCT in their work to drive the best outcomes. Are we voting, or drafting a letter, or what? This is an open question for tomorrow’s call. Some have indicated a preference for a less formal (letter) response, similar to what we’ve seen from the ccNSO. Others have noted that something this important would benefit from an itemized expression of support/non-support. The CCWG co-chairs, and the CCWG charter, appear to favor the latter, and certainly a formal vote will be required for the Final Recommendations. My hope is that we are able to resolve this tomorrow, but if necessary we can vote on whether or not we need to vote (!). If we do vote, then what is the vote about? What are we voting on? How will this go down? If we proceed with a vote, then the Councilors will be asked whether or not they agree with the Subteam’s analysis & consolidation of the public comments filed by the SGs and CS. In other words, we will be voting on the —language— of the response, NOT the response itself. Example: If the Subteam reports that the GNSO opposes a recommendation, a “Yes” vote will agree with that statement of GNSO opposition, not the recommendation itself. Hopefully this will become clearer tomorrow as we walk through the document. What if we can’t agree? If we cannot reach consensus (either via discussion or voting) on the GNSO response to any recommendation, then we will refer the CCWG Co-Chairs back to the individual comments filed by the SGs and Cs. I believe there are a few (2-3) areas in the report where this may be the case. But generally speaking, the Subteam found a great deal of overlap in SG/C positions, and when those comments included qualifiers or conditions, those were usually not in conflict. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> Reply-To: "egmorris1@toast.net" <egmorris1@toast.net> Date: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 8:40 To: Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi Marika, I'm very appreciative of your efforts to make us aware of the approach the CCNSO took. We need all the input we can get. Now if you could do the same for the GAC I think we all would be double appreciative! (we're still waiting for some smoke signals from our government colleagues). I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I definitely think we should be taking an up and down vote on each of the recommendations. I referenced the sub-teams work only to suggest that format - response by recommendation - be used going forward. Thanks for letting me know that I wasn't clear and giving me the chance to clear up any misunderstanding. Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 4:27 PM To: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@toast.net>, "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com>, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Thanks, Ed. I didn’t mean to imply that the ccNSO response was the way to go, I thought it just might be of interest to see how other chartering organisations in addition to the ALAC approached it. As a point of clarification, are you suggesting that an up / down vote would be taken on the response provided by the sub-team, not necessarily the recommendations themselves? I thought you were suggesting the latter in your initial email, but your last paragraph in this section makes me think you are suggesting the former? Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> Reply-To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> Date: Wednesday 13 January 2016 at 17:16 To: Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi Marika, Thanks for this. That certainly is an approach we could take but I question it's overall utility to those of us in the CCWG who are attempting to put together a proposal all of the chartering organisations can support. I would refer everyone to the CCWG Charter ( ), specifically: --- SO and AC support for the Draft Proposal(s) Following submission of the Draft Proposal(s), each of the chartering organizations shall, in accordance with their own rules and procedures, review and discuss the Draft Proposal(s) and decide whether to adopt the recommendations contained in it. The chairs of the chartering organizations shall notify the co-chairs of the WG of the result of the deliberations as soon as feasible. Supplemental Draft Proposal In the event that one or more of the participating SO’s or AC’s do(es) not adopt one or more of the recommendation(s) contained in the Draft Proposal(s), the Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability shall be notified accordingly. This notification shall include at a minimum the reasons for the lack of support and a suggested alternative that would be acceptable, if any. The CCWG-Accountability may, at its discretion, reconsider, post for public comments and/or submit to the chartering organizations a Supplemental Draft Proposal, which takes into accounting the concerns raised. Following submission of the Supplemental Draft Proposal, the chartering organizations shall discuss and decide in accordance with its own rules and procedures whether to adopt the recommendations contained in the Supplemental Draft Proposal. The Chairs of the chartering organizations shall notify the Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability of the result of the deliberations as soon as feasible. --- With the exception of its referral to the CWG requirements, I don't find the CCNSO response to be particularly helpful. Provisional support of the "direction of travel" doesn't tell the CCWG if we need to change some specifics of any of our recommendations. If the CCNSO is prepared to support all the recommendations save those related to the CWG they should say so. What we're trying to avoid is a situation where only on the final vote of approval / disapproval do we become aware of a Chartering organisations problems with a specific recommendation. As I understand things, that actually is the purpose of the special attention being paid to the Chartering organisations in this round of public comments. Although there are some tweaks that probably should be made, I do largely support the work of the Council sub-team and the result of their efforts and hope that is the basis of our discussion and response. Best, Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 3:39 PM To: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@toast.net>, "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com>, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report You may also be interested to see the approach the ccNSO Council took in their comments on the third draft proposal: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-draft-3-proposal-07jan16-en.pdf. Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> Reply-To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> Date: Wednesday 13 January 2016 at 15:42 To: Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Cc: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi, Other chartering organisations (see, for example, ALAC: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30n... ) have given clear indications of approval / disapproval of each of the twelve recommendations, along with reasoning thereof. I'd suggest we do the same. I'm ambivalent as to whether we indicate our preferences in the form of a Motion or a letter from our Chair, but I do believe the CCWG needs the simplified guidance that only a straight up / down decision on each recommendation can give. Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:07 PM To: "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com> Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi, I agree that a formal vote is not absolutely needed at this stage, but I wonder whether or not a formal vote of the 3rd draft recommendations would be helpful to the CCWG. I imagine that it will draw a very clear picture of where the stakeholder groups/constituencies of one of the CCWG’s chartering organisations stand on each of the recommendations. Although these positions have probably been communicated by the appointed members from the GNSO groups, my guess would be that the members of the CCWG may still find a Council vote helpful. Just a thought. Thanks. Amr
On Jan 13, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote:
Wolf-Ulrich,
Maybe tomorrow we could sort out and discuss the very last not yet agreeable recs. The formal vote could then be taken at a later stage – maybe even at the council meeting next week.
I am not entirely sure why a formal vote is needed now, assuming there will have to be one more, final(?) draft - surely what counts is the vote on the *final* version. Or am I wrong in my assumptions?
Julf
Agreed, a flat yes or no vote/response will not sufficiently capture the level of detail of the report and our views on them. Best, Volker Am 14.01.2016 um 09:35 schrieb WUKnoben:
All, at first my thanks to the team who undertook this effort of evaluation. As I see there are 5 levels of support suggested:
* General Support * General Support with qualifications * General Support with (possibly divergent) Conditions * Limited Support with some opposition * No support
Questions for understanding:
* did I put it in the right row (up – down)? * would you explain the differences? * what does “general support” mean? It looks like a restriction/limitation if it doesn’t mean “full support”. Why not just saying “support”?
I’m inclined to join Keith’s concerns re the rating for rec #11.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Drazek, Keith <mailto:kdrazek@Verisign.com> *Sent:* Thursday, January 14, 2016 7:56 AM *To:* James M. Bladel <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> ; egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net> ; Johan Helsingius <mailto:julf@julf.com> ; Amr Elsadr <mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org> ; Marika Konings <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> *Cc:* WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> ; GNSO Council List <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject:* RE: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report
James, thanks for this clear and concise explanation. I agree with your assessment on process.
I would like to raise a question about the “No Support” for Recommendation 11 in our draft communication. I understand there is opposition to the 2/3 threshold increase, but Recommendation 11 is broader than that…it also incorporates the threshold definition of GAC consensus advice (no formal opposition) into the bylaws, which is something very positive for all of us in the GNSO. Do we really want to signal “no support” for the entire recommendation, or should we perhaps make it “limited support with some opposition?” I’m a bit concerned that we’d be sending an inaccurate signal to the CCWG if it was left as simply “no support.”
For the record, the RySG understands that Recommendation 11 is a package and we suggested new provisions if the 2/3 language were to remain. We would be happy to see the 2/3 threshold reversed, but we did not signal “no support” on Rec-11 in our written comments to the CCWG.
Happy to discuss further on the upcoming Council call.
Regards,
Keith
*From:*owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *James M. Bladel *Sent:* Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:54 PM *To:* egmorris1@toast.net; Johan Helsingius; Amr Elsadr; Marika Konings *Cc:* WUKnoben; GNSO Council List *Subject:* Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report
Colleagues:
The discussion around this has been extremely valuable, and big thanks for all of those who weighed in. I apologize for taking so long to weigh in, but I was watching some of the keynote speeches here at NamesCon (include Paul’s. Nice job!). In any event, my thoughts are below.
*What is the purpose of tomorrow’s call?*
The GNSO Council will send its unified position on the CCWG-Accountability recommendations to the co-chairs of the CCWG. We will achieve this by reviewing, discussing and approving the Consolidated document that was prepared by the SubTeam.
*Should we do this now, or wait for the final CCWG Recommendations?*
It seems increasingly likely that there will be a new set of modified CCWG Recommendations in the near future. However, if we want to help shape the next report to ensure it reflects the views of the GNSO Community, we need to comment on this set of Recommendations now. Doing so will also provide guidance & support to the GNSO members of the CCWG-ACCT in their work to drive the best outcomes.
*Are we voting, or drafting a letter, or what?*
This is an open question for tomorrow’s call. Some have indicated a preference for a less formal (letter) response, similar to what we’ve seen from the ccNSO. Others have noted that something this important would benefit from an itemized expression of support/non-support. The CCWG co-chairs, and the CCWG charter, appear to favor the latter, and certainly a formal vote will be required for the Final Recommendations. My hope is that we are able to resolve this tomorrow, but if necessary we can vote on whether or not we need to vote (!).
*If we do vote, then what is the vote about? What are we voting on? How will this go down?*
If we proceed with a vote, then the Councilors will be asked whether or not they agree with the Subteam’s analysis & consolidation of the public comments filed by the SGs and CS. In other words, we will be voting on the —language— of the response, NOT the response itself. Example: If the Subteam reports that the GNSO opposes a recommendation, a “Yes” vote will agree with that statement of GNSO opposition, not the recommendation itself. Hopefully this will become clearer tomorrow as we walk through the document.
*What if we can’t agree?*
If we cannot reach consensus (either via discussion or voting) on the GNSO response to any recommendation, then we will refer the CCWG Co-Chairs back to the individual comments filed by the SGs and Cs. I believe there are a few (2-3) areas in the report where this may be the case. But generally speaking, the Subteam found a great deal of overlap in SG/C positions, and when those comments included qualifiers or conditions, those were usually not in conflict.
*From: *<owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> *Reply-To: *"egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>" <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> *Date: *Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 8:40 *To: *Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com <mailto:julf@julf.com>>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> *Cc: *WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> *Subject: *Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report
Hi Marika,
I'm very appreciative of your efforts to make us aware of the approach the CCNSO took. We need all the input we can get. Now if you could do the same for the GAC I think we all would be double appreciative! (we're still waiting for some smoke signals from our government colleagues).
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I definitely think we should be taking an up and down vote on each of the recommendations. I referenced the sub-teams work only to suggest that format - response by recommendation - be used going forward. Thanks for letting me know that I wasn't clear and giving me the chance to clear up any misunderstanding.
Ed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From*: "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> *Sent*: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 4:27 PM *To*: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>>, "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com <mailto:julf@julf.com>>, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> *Cc*: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> *Subject*: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report
Thanks, Ed. I didn’t mean to imply that the ccNSO response was the way to go, I thought it just might be of interest to see how other chartering organisations in addition to the ALAC approached it.
As a point of clarification, are you suggesting that an up / down vote would be taken on the response provided by the sub-team, not necessarily the recommendations themselves? I thought you were suggesting the latter in your initial email, but your last paragraph in this section makes me think you are suggesting the former?
Best regards,
Marika
*From: *<owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> *Reply-To: *Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> *Date: *Wednesday 13 January 2016 at 17:16 *To: *Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com <mailto:julf@julf.com>>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> *Cc: *WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> *Subject: *Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report
Hi Marika,
Thanks for this. That certainly is an approach we could take but I question it's overall utility to those of us in the CCWG who are attempting to put together a proposal all of the chartering organisations can support.
I would refer everyone to the CCWG Charter ( ), specifically:
---
SO and AC support for the Draft Proposal(s) Following submission of the Draft Proposal(s), each of the chartering organizations shall, in accordance with their own rules and procedures, review and discuss the Draft Proposal(s) and decide whether to adopt the recommendations contained in it. The chairs of the chartering organizations shall notify the co-chairs of the WG of the result of the deliberations as soon as feasible.
Supplemental Draft Proposal In the event that one or more of the participating SO’s or AC’s do(es) not adopt one or more of the recommendation(s) contained in the Draft Proposal(s), the Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability shall be notified accordingly. This notification shall include at a minimum the reasons for the lack of support and a suggested alternative that would be acceptable, if any. The CCWG-Accountability may, at its discretion, reconsider, post for public comments and/or submit to the chartering organizations a Supplemental Draft Proposal, which takes into accounting the concerns raised.
Following submission of the Supplemental Draft Proposal, the chartering organizations shall discuss and decide in accordance with its own rules and procedures whether to adopt the recommendations contained in the Supplemental Draft Proposal. The Chairs of the chartering organizations shall notify the Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability of the result of the deliberations as soon as feasible.
---
With the exception of its referral to the CWG requirements, I don't find the CCNSO response to be particularly helpful. Provisional support of the "direction of travel" doesn't tell the CCWG if we need to change some specifics of any of our recommendations. If the CCNSO is prepared to support all the recommendations save those related to the CWG they should say so. What we're trying to avoid is a situation where only on the final vote of approval / disapproval do we become aware of a Chartering organisations problems with a specific recommendation. As I understand things, that actually is the purpose of the special attention being paid to the Chartering organisations in this round of public comments. Although there are some tweaks that probably should be made, I do largely support the work of the Council sub-team and the result of their efforts and hope that is the basis of our discussion and response.
Best,
Ed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From*: "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> *Sent*: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 3:39 PM *To*: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>>, "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com <mailto:julf@julf.com>>, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> *Cc*: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> *Subject*: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report
You may also be interested to see the approach the ccNSO Council took in their comments on the third draft proposal: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-draft-3-proposal-07jan16-en.pdf.
Best regards,
Marika
*From: *<owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> *Reply-To: *Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> *Date: *Wednesday 13 January 2016 at 15:42 *To: *Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com <mailto:julf@julf.com>>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> *Cc: *WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> *Subject: *Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report
Hi,
Other chartering organisations (see, for example, ALAC: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30n... ) have given clear indications of approval / disapproval of each of the twelve recommendations, along with reasoning thereof. I'd suggest we do the same. I'm ambivalent as to whether we indicate our preferences in the form of a Motion or a letter from our Chair, but I do believe the CCWG needs the simplified guidance that only a straight up / down decision on each recommendation can give.
Ed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From*: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> *Sent*: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:07 PM *To*: "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com <mailto:julf@julf.com>> *Cc*: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> *Subject*: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report
Hi,
I agree that a formal vote is not absolutely needed at this stage, but I wonder whether or not a formal vote of the 3rd draft recommendations would be helpful to the CCWG. I imagine that it will draw a very clear picture of where the stakeholder groups/constituencies of one of the CCWG’s chartering organisations stand on each of the recommendations.
Although these positions have probably been communicated by the appointed members from the GNSO groups, my guess would be that the members of the CCWG may still find a Council vote helpful.
Just a thought.
Thanks.
Amr
On Jan 13, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com <mailto:julf@julf.com>> wrote:
Wolf-Ulrich,
Maybe tomorrow we could sort out and discuss the very last not yet agreeable recs. The formal vote could then be taken at a later stage – maybe even at the council meeting next week.
I am not entirely sure why a formal vote is needed now, assuming there will have to be one more, final(?) draft - surely what counts is the vote on the *final* version. Or am I wrong in my assumptions?
Julf
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
I think there is another category “Little to no support with strong opposition” Best, Paul From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 4:10 AM To: WUKnoben; Drazek, Keith; James M. Bladel; egmorris1@toast.net; Johan Helsingius; Amr Elsadr; Marika Konings Cc: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Agreed, a flat yes or no vote/response will not sufficiently capture the level of detail of the report and our views on them. Best, Volker Am 14.01.2016 um 09:35 schrieb WUKnoben: All, at first my thanks to the team who undertook this effort of evaluation. As I see there are 5 levels of support suggested: * General Support * General Support with qualifications * General Support with (possibly divergent) Conditions * Limited Support with some opposition * No support Questions for understanding: * did I put it in the right row (up – down)? * would you explain the differences? * what does “general support” mean? It looks like a restriction/limitation if it doesn’t mean “full support”. Why not just saying “support”? I’m inclined to join Keith’s concerns re the rating for rec #11. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Drazek, Keith<mailto:kdrazek@Verisign.com> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 7:56 AM To: James M. Bladel<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> ; egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net> ; Johan Helsingius<mailto:julf@julf.com> ; Amr Elsadr<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org> ; Marika Konings<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: WUKnoben<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> ; GNSO Council List<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report James, thanks for this clear and concise explanation. I agree with your assessment on process. I would like to raise a question about the “No Support” for Recommendation 11 in our draft communication. I understand there is opposition to the 2/3 threshold increase, but Recommendation 11 is broader than that…it also incorporates the threshold definition of GAC consensus advice (no formal opposition) into the bylaws, which is something very positive for all of us in the GNSO. Do we really want to signal “no support” for the entire recommendation, or should we perhaps make it “limited support with some opposition?” I’m a bit concerned that we’d be sending an inaccurate signal to the CCWG if it was left as simply “no support.” For the record, the RySG understands that Recommendation 11 is a package and we suggested new provisions if the 2/3 language were to remain. We would be happy to see the 2/3 threshold reversed, but we did not signal “no support” on Rec-11 in our written comments to the CCWG. Happy to discuss further on the upcoming Council call. 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: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:54 PM To: egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>; Johan Helsingius; Amr Elsadr; Marika Konings Cc: WUKnoben; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Colleagues: The discussion around this has been extremely valuable, and big thanks for all of those who weighed in. I apologize for taking so long to weigh in, but I was watching some of the keynote speeches here at NamesCon (include Paul’s. Nice job!). In any event, my thoughts are below. What is the purpose of tomorrow’s call? The GNSO Council will send its unified position on the CCWG-Accountability recommendations to the co-chairs of the CCWG. We will achieve this by reviewing, discussing and approving the Consolidated document that was prepared by the SubTeam. Should we do this now, or wait for the final CCWG Recommendations? It seems increasingly likely that there will be a new set of modified CCWG Recommendations in the near future. However, if we want to help shape the next report to ensure it reflects the views of the GNSO Community, we need to comment on this set of Recommendations now. Doing so will also provide guidance & support to the GNSO members of the CCWG-ACCT in their work to drive the best outcomes. Are we voting, or drafting a letter, or what? This is an open question for tomorrow’s call. Some have indicated a preference for a less formal (letter) response, similar to what we’ve seen from the ccNSO. Others have noted that something this important would benefit from an itemized expression of support/non-support. The CCWG co-chairs, and the CCWG charter, appear to favor the latter, and certainly a formal vote will be required for the Final Recommendations. My hope is that we are able to resolve this tomorrow, but if necessary we can vote on whether or not we need to vote (!). If we do vote, then what is the vote about? What are we voting on? How will this go down? If we proceed with a vote, then the Councilors will be asked whether or not they agree with the Subteam’s analysis & consolidation of the public comments filed by the SGs and CS. In other words, we will be voting on the —language— of the response, NOT the response itself. Example: If the Subteam reports that the GNSO opposes a recommendation, a “Yes” vote will agree with that statement of GNSO opposition, not the recommendation itself. Hopefully this will become clearer tomorrow as we walk through the document. What if we can’t agree? If we cannot reach consensus (either via discussion or voting) on the GNSO response to any recommendation, then we will refer the CCWG Co-Chairs back to the individual comments filed by the SGs and Cs. I believe there are a few (2-3) areas in the report where this may be the case. But generally speaking, the Subteam found a great deal of overlap in SG/C positions, and when those comments included qualifiers or conditions, those were usually not in conflict. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Reply-To: "egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>" <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Date: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 8:40 To: Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi Marika, I'm very appreciative of your efforts to make us aware of the approach the CCNSO took. We need all the input we can get. Now if you could do the same for the GAC I think we all would be double appreciative! (we're still waiting for some smoke signals from our government colleagues). I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I definitely think we should be taking an up and down vote on each of the recommendations. I referenced the sub-teams work only to suggest that format - response by recommendation - be used going forward. Thanks for letting me know that I wasn't clear and giving me the chance to clear up any misunderstanding. Ed ________________________________ From: "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 4:27 PM To: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>>, "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>>, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Thanks, Ed. I didn’t mean to imply that the ccNSO response was the way to go, I thought it just might be of interest to see how other chartering organisations in addition to the ALAC approached it. As a point of clarification, are you suggesting that an up / down vote would be taken on the response provided by the sub-team, not necessarily the recommendations themselves? I thought you were suggesting the latter in your initial email, but your last paragraph in this section makes me think you are suggesting the former? Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Reply-To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Date: Wednesday 13 January 2016 at 17:16 To: Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi Marika, Thanks for this. That certainly is an approach we could take but I question it's overall utility to those of us in the CCWG who are attempting to put together a proposal all of the chartering organisations can support. I would refer everyone to the CCWG Charter ( ), specifically: --- SO and AC support for the Draft Proposal(s) Following submission of the Draft Proposal(s), each of the chartering organizations shall, in accordance with their own rules and procedures, review and discuss the Draft Proposal(s) and decide whether to adopt the recommendations contained in it. The chairs of the chartering organizations shall notify the co-chairs of the WG of the result of the deliberations as soon as feasible. Supplemental Draft Proposal In the event that one or more of the participating SO’s or AC’s do(es) not adopt one or more of the recommendation(s) contained in the Draft Proposal(s), the Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability shall be notified accordingly. This notification shall include at a minimum the reasons for the lack of support and a suggested alternative that would be acceptable, if any. The CCWG-Accountability may, at its discretion, reconsider, post for public comments and/or submit to the chartering organizations a Supplemental Draft Proposal, which takes into accounting the concerns raised. Following submission of the Supplemental Draft Proposal, the chartering organizations shall discuss and decide in accordance with its own rules and procedures whether to adopt the recommendations contained in the Supplemental Draft Proposal. The Chairs of the chartering organizations shall notify the Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability of the result of the deliberations as soon as feasible. --- With the exception of its referral to the CWG requirements, I don't find the CCNSO response to be particularly helpful. Provisional support of the "direction of travel" doesn't tell the CCWG if we need to change some specifics of any of our recommendations. If the CCNSO is prepared to support all the recommendations save those related to the CWG they should say so. What we're trying to avoid is a situation where only on the final vote of approval / disapproval do we become aware of a Chartering organisations problems with a specific recommendation. As I understand things, that actually is the purpose of the special attention being paid to the Chartering organisations in this round of public comments. Although there are some tweaks that probably should be made, I do largely support the work of the Council sub-team and the result of their efforts and hope that is the basis of our discussion and response. Best, Ed ________________________________ From: "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 3:39 PM To: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>>, "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>>, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report You may also be interested to see the approach the ccNSO Council took in their comments on the third draft proposal: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-draft-3-proposal-07jan16-en.pdf. Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Reply-To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Date: Wednesday 13 January 2016 at 15:42 To: Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Cc: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi, Other chartering organisations (see, for example, ALAC: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30n... ) have given clear indications of approval / disapproval of each of the twelve recommendations, along with reasoning thereof. I'd suggest we do the same. I'm ambivalent as to whether we indicate our preferences in the form of a Motion or a letter from our Chair, but I do believe the CCWG needs the simplified guidance that only a straight up / down decision on each recommendation can give. Ed ________________________________ From: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:07 PM To: "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>> Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi, I agree that a formal vote is not absolutely needed at this stage, but I wonder whether or not a formal vote of the 3rd draft recommendations would be helpful to the CCWG. I imagine that it will draw a very clear picture of where the stakeholder groups/constituencies of one of the CCWG’s chartering organisations stand on each of the recommendations. Although these positions have probably been communicated by the appointed members from the GNSO groups, my guess would be that the members of the CCWG may still find a Council vote helpful. Just a thought. Thanks. Amr
On Jan 13, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>> wrote:
Wolf-Ulrich,
Maybe tomorrow we could sort out and discuss the very last not yet agreeable recs. The formal vote could then be taken at a later stage – maybe even at the council meeting next week.
I am not entirely sure why a formal vote is needed now, assuming there will have to be one more, final(?) draft - surely what counts is the vote on the *final* version. Or am I wrong in my assumptions?
Julf
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
Keith's email identifies the problem with a formal up or down vote at this stage. Presumably, a formal up or down vote would have to be for the Recommendation as written as opposed to a sentence by sentence up or down vote on elements of each Recommendation (yes to that element, no to the other). Saying that there is "limited support with some opposition" also sends the wrong message on Recommendation 11 since there is strong, broad-based opposition to the Recommendation as written and the CCWG may think they are OK to ignore "some opposition" when, in fact, it appears that the Recommendation as written needs a major overhaul to get close to acceptable. Best, Paul From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 1:03 AM To: James M. Bladel; egmorris1@toast.net; Johan Helsingius; Amr Elsadr; Marika Konings Cc: WUKnoben; GNSO Council List Subject: RE: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report James, thanks for this clear and concise explanation. I agree with your assessment on process. I would like to raise a question about the "No Support" for Recommendation 11 in our draft communication. I understand there is opposition to the 2/3 threshold increase, but Recommendation 11 is broader than that...it also incorporates the threshold definition of GAC consensus advice (no formal opposition) into the bylaws, which is something very positive for all of us in the GNSO. Do we really want to signal "no support" for the entire recommendation, or should we perhaps make it "limited support with some opposition?" I'm a bit concerned that we'd be sending an inaccurate signal to the CCWG if it was left as simply "no support." For the record, the RySG understands that Recommendation 11 is a package and we suggested new provisions if the 2/3 language were to remain. We would be happy to see the 2/3 threshold reversed, but we did not signal "no support" on Rec-11 in our written comments to the CCWG. Happy to discuss further on the upcoming Council call. 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: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:54 PM To: egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>; Johan Helsingius; Amr Elsadr; Marika Konings Cc: WUKnoben; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Colleagues: The discussion around this has been extremely valuable, and big thanks for all of those who weighed in. I apologize for taking so long to weigh in, but I was watching some of the keynote speeches here at NamesCon (include Paul's. Nice job!). In any event, my thoughts are below. What is the purpose of tomorrow's call? The GNSO Council will send its unified position on the CCWG-Accountability recommendations to the co-chairs of the CCWG. We will achieve this by reviewing, discussing and approving the Consolidated document that was prepared by the SubTeam. Should we do this now, or wait for the final CCWG Recommendations? It seems increasingly likely that there will be a new set of modified CCWG Recommendations in the near future. However, if we want to help shape the next report to ensure it reflects the views of the GNSO Community, we need to comment on this set of Recommendations now. Doing so will also provide guidance & support to the GNSO members of the CCWG-ACCT in their work to drive the best outcomes. Are we voting, or drafting a letter, or what? This is an open question for tomorrow's call. Some have indicated a preference for a less formal (letter) response, similar to what we've seen from the ccNSO. Others have noted that something this important would benefit from an itemized expression of support/non-support. The CCWG co-chairs, and the CCWG charter, appear to favor the latter, and certainly a formal vote will be required for the Final Recommendations. My hope is that we are able to resolve this tomorrow, but if necessary we can vote on whether or not we need to vote (!). If we do vote, then what is the vote about? What are we voting on? How will this go down? If we proceed with a vote, then the Councilors will be asked whether or not they agree with the Subteam's analysis & consolidation of the public comments filed by the SGs and CS. In other words, we will be voting on the -language- of the response, NOT the response itself. Example: If the Subteam reports that the GNSO opposes a recommendation, a "Yes" vote will agree with that statement of GNSO opposition, not the recommendation itself. Hopefully this will become clearer tomorrow as we walk through the document. What if we can't agree? If we cannot reach consensus (either via discussion or voting) on the GNSO response to any recommendation, then we will refer the CCWG Co-Chairs back to the individual comments filed by the SGs and Cs. I believe there are a few (2-3) areas in the report where this may be the case. But generally speaking, the Subteam found a great deal of overlap in SG/C positions, and when those comments included qualifiers or conditions, those were usually not in conflict. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Reply-To: "egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>" <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Date: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 8:40 To: Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi Marika, I'm very appreciative of your efforts to make us aware of the approach the CCNSO took. We need all the input we can get. Now if you could do the same for the GAC I think we all would be double appreciative! (we're still waiting for some smoke signals from our government colleagues). I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I definitely think we should be taking an up and down vote on each of the recommendations. I referenced the sub-teams work only to suggest that format - response by recommendation - be used going forward. Thanks for letting me know that I wasn't clear and giving me the chance to clear up any misunderstanding. Ed ________________________________ From: "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 4:27 PM To: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>>, "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>>, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Thanks, Ed. I didn't mean to imply that the ccNSO response was the way to go, I thought it just might be of interest to see how other chartering organisations in addition to the ALAC approached it. As a point of clarification, are you suggesting that an up / down vote would be taken on the response provided by the sub-team, not necessarily the recommendations themselves? I thought you were suggesting the latter in your initial email, but your last paragraph in this section makes me think you are suggesting the former? Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Reply-To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Date: Wednesday 13 January 2016 at 17:16 To: Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi Marika, Thanks for this. That certainly is an approach we could take but I question it's overall utility to those of us in the CCWG who are attempting to put together a proposal all of the chartering organisations can support. I would refer everyone to the CCWG Charter ( ), specifically: --- SO and AC support for the Draft Proposal(s) Following submission of the Draft Proposal(s), each of the chartering organizations shall, in accordance with their own rules and procedures, review and discuss the Draft Proposal(s) and decide whether to adopt the recommendations contained in it. The chairs of the chartering organizations shall notify the co-chairs of the WG of the result of the deliberations as soon as feasible. Supplemental Draft Proposal In the event that one or more of the participating SO's or AC's do(es) not adopt one or more of the recommendation(s) contained in the Draft Proposal(s), the Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability shall be notified accordingly. This notification shall include at a minimum the reasons for the lack of support and a suggested alternative that would be acceptable, if any. The CCWG-Accountability may, at its discretion, reconsider, post for public comments and/or submit to the chartering organizations a Supplemental Draft Proposal, which takes into accounting the concerns raised. Following submission of the Supplemental Draft Proposal, the chartering organizations shall discuss and decide in accordance with its own rules and procedures whether to adopt the recommendations contained in the Supplemental Draft Proposal. The Chairs of the chartering organizations shall notify the Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability of the result of the deliberations as soon as feasible. --- With the exception of its referral to the CWG requirements, I don't find the CCNSO response to be particularly helpful. Provisional support of the "direction of travel" doesn't tell the CCWG if we need to change some specifics of any of our recommendations. If the CCNSO is prepared to support all the recommendations save those related to the CWG they should say so. What we're trying to avoid is a situation where only on the final vote of approval / disapproval do we become aware of a Chartering organisations problems with a specific recommendation. As I understand things, that actually is the purpose of the special attention being paid to the Chartering organisations in this round of public comments. Although there are some tweaks that probably should be made, I do largely support the work of the Council sub-team and the result of their efforts and hope that is the basis of our discussion and response. Best, Ed ________________________________ From: "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 3:39 PM To: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>>, "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>>, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report You may also be interested to see the approach the ccNSO Council took in their comments on the third draft proposal: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-draft-3-proposal-07jan16-en.pdf. Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Reply-To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Date: Wednesday 13 January 2016 at 15:42 To: Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Cc: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi, Other chartering organisations (see, for example, ALAC: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30n... ) have given clear indications of approval / disapproval of each of the twelve recommendations, along with reasoning thereof. I'd suggest we do the same. I'm ambivalent as to whether we indicate our preferences in the form of a Motion or a letter from our Chair, but I do believe the CCWG needs the simplified guidance that only a straight up / down decision on each recommendation can give. Ed ________________________________ From: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:07 PM To: "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>> Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi, I agree that a formal vote is not absolutely needed at this stage, but I wonder whether or not a formal vote of the 3rd draft recommendations would be helpful to the CCWG. I imagine that it will draw a very clear picture of where the stakeholder groups/constituencies of one of the CCWG's chartering organisations stand on each of the recommendations. Although these positions have probably been communicated by the appointed members from the GNSO groups, my guess would be that the members of the CCWG may still find a Council vote helpful. Just a thought. Thanks. Amr
On Jan 13, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>> wrote:
Wolf-Ulrich,
Maybe tomorrow we could sort out and discuss the very last not yet agreeable recs. The formal vote could then be taken at a later stage - maybe even at the council meeting next week.
I am not entirely sure why a formal vote is needed now, assuming there will have to be one more, final(?) draft - surely what counts is the vote on the *final* version. Or am I wrong in my assumptions?
Julf
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
On 14/01/16 12:17, McGrady, Paul D. wrote:
Saying that there is “limited support with some opposition” also sends the wrong message on Recommendation 11 since there is strong, broad-based opposition to the Recommendation /as written/ and the CCWG may think they are OK to ignore “some opposition” when, in fact, it appears that the Recommendation /as written /needs a major overhaul to get close to acceptable.
I agree with Paul, and yes, we do need the “Little to no support with strong opposition” category. Julf
Hi everyone, My apologies. I inadvertently left out the link to the CCWG Charter in my last post. It may be found at: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Charter . Kind Regards, Ed Morris ---------------------------------------- From: "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 3:39 PM To: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@toast.net>, "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com>, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report You may also be interested to see the approach the ccNSO Council took in their comments on the third draft proposal: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-draft-3-proposal-07jan16-en.pdf. Best regards, Marika From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> Reply-To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> Date: Wednesday 13 January 2016 at 15:42 To: Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Cc: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi, Other chartering organisations (see, for example, ALAC: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30n... ) have given clear indications of approval / disapproval of each of the twelve recommendations, along with reasoning thereof. I'd suggest we do the same. I'm ambivalent as to whether we indicate our preferences in the form of a Motion or a letter from our Chair, but I do believe the CCWG needs the simplified guidance that only a straight up / down decision on each recommendation can give. Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:07 PM To: "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com> Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Hi, I agree that a formal vote is not absolutely needed at this stage, but I wonder whether or not a formal vote of the 3rd draft recommendations would be helpful to the CCWG. I imagine that it will draw a very clear picture of where the stakeholder groups/constituencies of one of the CCWG's chartering organisations stand on each of the recommendations. Although these positions have probably been communicated by the appointed members from the GNSO groups, my guess would be that the members of the CCWG may still find a Council vote helpful. Just a thought. Thanks. Amr
On Jan 13, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote:
Wolf-Ulrich,
Maybe tomorrow we could sort out and discuss the very last not yet agreeable recs. The formal vote could then be taken at a later stage - maybe even at the council meeting next week.
I am not entirely sure why a formal vote is needed now, assuming there will have to be one more, final(?) draft - surely what counts is the vote on the *final* version. Or am I wrong in my assumptions?
Julf
Dear Councillors, Due to a mix-up by staff, Amr circulated a slightly older version of this motion. With Amr¹s consent, the correct version has been uploaded to the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/lZRlAw and the final issue report can be found here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-final-issue-11jan16-en.pdf Many thanks and best wishes, Lars On 13/01/2016, 07:04, "owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Amr Elsadr" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:
Hi,
I agree that a formal vote is not absolutely needed at this stage, but I wonder whether or not a formal vote of the 3rd draft recommendations would be helpful to the CCWG. I imagine that it will draw a very clear picture of where the stakeholder groups/constituencies of one of the CCWG¹s chartering organisations stand on each of the recommendations.
Although these positions have probably been communicated by the appointed members from the GNSO groups, my guess would be that the members of the CCWG may still find a Council vote helpful.
Just a thought.
Thanks.
Amr
On Jan 13, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote:
Wolf-Ulrich,
Maybe tomorrow we could sort out and discuss the very last not yet agreeable recs. The formal vote could then be taken at a later stage maybe even at the council meeting next week.
I am not entirely sure why a formal vote is needed now, assuming there will have to be one more, final(?) draft - surely what counts is the vote on the *final* version. Or am I wrong in my assumptions?
Julf
Hi Wolf-Ulrich - Just received all of the submissions from the sub team, and am in the process of assembling these. Once complete, we will circulate to the main Council list. Apologies for the delay, and thanks for your patience. Please watch for something in the next 24 hours. Thanks— J. From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Date: Monday, January 11, 2016 at 0:38 To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report James and team, when we’ll have your findings available? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: WUKnoben<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 11:37 PM To: James M. Bladel<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> ; GNSO Council List<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Thanks James and team, if you could make available the findings before the upcoming weekend this would be very helpful with respect to the timely coordination within the SGs/C’s. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: James M. Bladel<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 10:08 PM To: GNSO Council List<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report Colleagues - Attached and copied below, please find a Motion for consideration during our special session on 14 JAN to consider the Recommendations contained in the Third Draft CCWG-Accountability report. The small sub team reviewing comments submitted by SGs and Cs met today, and finalization of the findings/comments contained in the motion will be completed between now and our meeting. Please note that on todays call we also raised the possibility that a GNSO response might be more informal (e.g., letter) rather than a formal motion. This will also be part of our discussion on the 14th, but I wanted to have the motion submitted to the list in the event that we choose this approach. Thanks— J. ________________________________ Motion on GNSO Joint Position on CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal Whereas, <!--[if !supportLists]-->1. <!--[endif]-->The GNSO Council, together with other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, chartered the Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) on 13 November 2014 ‘to deliver proposals that would enhance ICANN’s accountability towards all stakeholders. <!--[if !supportLists]-->2. <!--[endif]-->The CCWG-Accountability published its third draft proposal for public comment on 30 November 2015 (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-201...). <!--[if !supportLists]-->3. <!--[endif]-->All GNSO Stakeholder Groups (SGs) and/or Constituencies (Cs) submitted their input on the third draft proposal and its 12 recommendations. <!--[if !supportLists]-->4. <!--[endif]-->A GNSO Council sub-team was formed to review the input submitted by the GNSO SG/Cs and make a recommendation to the GNSO Council concerning a possible joint GNSO position on the third draft proposal . <!--[if !supportLists]-->5. <!--[endif]-->The GNSO Council has reviewed the input provided by the sub-team on the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal. Resolved, <!--[if !supportLists]-->1. <!--[endif]-->The GNSO Council views on the recommendations contained in the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal are as follows: Recommendation #1 Establishing An Empowered Community For Enforcing Community Powers for more information GNSO Council Support General Support / Limited Support with some opposition / No support Comments Recommendation #2 Empowering The Community Through Consensus: Engage, Escalate, Enforce for more information GNSO Council Support General Support / Limited Support with some opposition / No support Comments Recommendation #3 Redefining ICANN’s Bylaws As ‘Standard Bylaws’ And ‘Fundamental Bylaws’ for more information GNSO Council Support General Support / Limited Support with some opposition / No support Comments Recommendation #4 Ensuring Community Involvement In ICANN Decision-Making: Seven New Community Powers for more information GNSO Council Support General Support / Limited Support with some opposition / No support Comments Recommendation #5 Changing Aspects Of ICANN's Mission, Commitments And Core Values for more information) GNSO Council Support General Support / Limited Support with some opposition / No support Comments Recommendation #6 Reaffirming ICANN's Commitment to Respect Internationally Recognized Human Rights as it Carries Out Its Mission for more information GNSO Council Support General Support / Limited Support with some opposition / No support Comments Recommendation #7 Strengthening ICANN's Independent Review Process for more information GNSO Council Support General Support / Limited Support with some opposition / No support Comments Recommendation #8 Improving ICANN's Request For Reconsideration Process for more information GNSO Council Support General Support / Limited Support with some opposition / No support Comments Recommendation #9 Incorporation of the Affirmation of Commitments for more information GNSO Council Support General Support / Limited Support with some opposition / No support Comments Recommendation #10 Enhancing the Accountability of Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for more information GNSO Council Support General Support / Limited Support with some opposition / No support Comments Recommendation #11 Board obligations regarding GAC Advice GNSO Council Support General Support / Limited Support with some opposition / No support Comments Recommendation #12 Committing to further accountability work in Work Stream 2 GNSO Council Support General Support / Limited Support with some opposition / No support Comments <!--[if !supportLists]-->2. <!--[endif]-->The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to share this GNSO Council input on the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal with the Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability as soon as possible. <!--[if !supportLists]-->3. <!--[endif]-->Although this GNSO input is submitted after the close of the public comment period, the GNSO Council expects the CCWG-Accountability to give this input due consideration as it is the aggregation of the individual GNSO SG/C positions that were submitted before the deadline. <!--[if !supportLists]-->4. <!--[endif]-->The GNSO Council appreciates all the efforts of the CCWG-Accountability to deliver its final proposal to the Chartering Organizations in a timely manner and looks forward to considering the final proposal in due time.
participants (11)
-
Amr Elsadr -
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez -
Drazek, Keith -
Edward Morris -
James M. Bladel -
Johan Helsingius -
Lars Hoffmann -
Marika Konings -
McGrady, Paul D. -
Volker Greimann -
WUKnoben