Does removing item 4 help? I have not been involved, but I fear that the deadline will be struck before Rafik is online to respond. Stephanie On 2017-08-14 10:37, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:

Rafik

This topic has been discussed on multiple occasions at the GNSO Council. Council’s issues with the CCWG have been made very clear. Asking that the motion be modified as you’re suggesting with the addition of the new #4 seems to completely ignore the various exchanges we’ve had on this topic over the last few months. Personally I could not support the motion with this additional language.

Regards

Michele

--

Mr Michele Neylon

Blacknight Solutions

Hosting, Colocation & Domains

https://www.blacknight.com/

http://blacknight.blog/

Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072

Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090

Personal blog: https://michele.blog/

Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/

-------------------------------

Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty

Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845

*From: *<council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> *Date: *Monday 14 August 2017 at 14:45 *To: *Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject: *[council] Proposed amendments to CCWG-IG motion

Hi all,

please find attached a document with proposed amendments to the CCWG-IG motion that was deferred in the last council call.

I hope they can be accepted as friendly.

Best,

Rafik

_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

Hi all, The changes proposed by Rafik materially change the motion and I’m unable to accept them as friendly amendments. Following many months of discussion on this topic, including during the CCWG-IG F2F meeting in Johannesburg, it has become clear that the CCWG-IG does not fit the CCWG model that was the formal output of a cross-community working group. My understanding is that the reps from ccNSO and ALAC have also reached this conclusion. The purpose of the proposed motion is to: 1. Signal that the GNSO intends to withdraw as a chartering organization because the CCWG-IG does not fit the formal CCWG model. 2. Signal that the GNSO respects the work of the CCWG on CCWGs and we support the official model of CCWGs. 3. Signal that the GNSO respects the work of the CCWG-IG, even while we recognize it does not fit the CCWG model. 4. Signal that the GNSO intends to work with the other CCWG-IG chartering organizations to identify a replacement model so the work can continue uninterrupted. 5. Set a reasonable deadline by which the GNSO will withdraw as a chartering organization, with the expectation that the current chartering organizations will work together to develop a replacement by that date. The changes proposed by Rafik in #4 do not sync with the purpose of the motion. As discussed during our last GNSO Council call, in response to Avri’s suggestion that we move the target date/deadline from ICANN 60 to ICANN 61, I would accept the date shift as a friendly amendment. We agreed that the CCWG-IG reps would need to conduct intercessional work and also likely need to meet face-to-face to establish a replacement structure and I think that ICANN 61 is still a reasonable date. In my opinion, it is the responsibility of the GNSO Council to set clear expectations and to reinforce that we believe a CCWG must fit the model the community has agreed to. Let me also say that I don’t believe the change of model or structure needs to be overly dramatic. Just change the name from Cross Community Working Group (which has an explicit definition) to Cross Community Discussion Group or Cross Community Engagement Group. Even if additional work is required, it seems 7 months ought to be plenty of time. So, to reiterate, I would be open to accepting the date shift from ICANN 60 to ICANN 61, but the other proposed changes will not support the intent of the motion. Regards, Keith From: council-bounces@gnso.icann.org [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 3:38 PM To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] Proposed amendments to CCWG-IG motion Stephanie and Colleagues – Speaking as a Registrar rep and Seconder of the motion, I would not see these changes as friendly amendments as friendly. I will wait for Keith to respond as well. And my concerns go beyond Resolved 4. For example, the proposed amendments would defer/delay a decision from ICANN60 to ICANN61 (Resolved 3 and 5), as well as change the decision to a conditional (Resolved 5, 6 and 7). Of all the proposed changes, I believe Resolved 7 is the least impactful (but Rafik may see this as dependent upon the other proposed amendments). Thank you, J. From: <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Date: Monday, August 14, 2017 at 14:26 To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Proposed amendments to CCWG-IG motion Does removing item 4 help? I have not been involved, but I fear that the deadline will be struck before Rafik is online to respond. Stephanie On 2017-08-14 10:37, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: Rafik This topic has been discussed on multiple occasions at the GNSO Council. Council’s issues with the CCWG have been made very clear. Asking that the motion be modified as you’re suggesting with the addition of the new #4 seems to completely ignore the various exchanges we’ve had on this topic over the last few months. Personally I could not support the motion with this additional language. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org><mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com><mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Date: Monday 14 August 2017 at 14:45 To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org><mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Proposed amendments to CCWG-IG motion Hi all, please find attached a document with proposed amendments to the CCWG-IG motion that was deferred in the last council call. I hope they can be accepted as friendly. Best, Rafik _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

All, to my understanding there is agreement that * a replacement model to the CCWG-IG is to be found and * that the IG related work can continue uninterrupted I personally have some doubts whether the work can be done uninterrupted in case one or more of the chartering organizations withdraw _before_ the replacement body is in place. The uncertainty of this date makes it difficult to set an automatic withdrawal. If the council is supposed to not just "consider" the new model at ICANN 61 (res. clause 3 of the motion) but to "approve" it or evaluate it as feasible this would facilitate the withdrawal. My suggestion: re clause 3: The GNSO Council requests that members of the CCWG-IG and others interested parties come together to explore a framework / model that more fully addresses the concerns that have been expressed by the GNSO Council, and submit this framework / model to the GNSO Council for its consideration by(a date before ICANN61) re clause 5: the GNSO Council shallwithdrawas a Chartering Organization from the CCWG-IG at the conclusion of upon approval of the new model at ICANN 61 Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Am 14.08.2017 um 22:59 schrieb Rafik Dammak:

Hi Keith and all,

Trying to respond to several comments in this thread and clarify the intent behind the,:

1/ with regard to the delay from ICANN60 to ICANN61, we discussed that during the call and mentioned, that ICANN60 is a short deadline for the CCWG-IG to deliver a proposal for the new structure and respond to council concerns. 2/ #4 was added to list clearly the concerns from the council, yes there was a lot of discussions on that matter in different times but we didn't formalize that. if #4 is a problem, we can drop it. 3/ regarding the conditional, it was also raised that we need a clear transition from the CCWG model to the new model proposed by the group and approved by chartering organizations. if GNSO withdraws as CO as stated in the original motion, there is no indication that will rejoin the new structure. the intent of the amendment is to give some transitional time and avoid the automatic withdrawal.

@Keith I see that we have at least an agreement to shift the deadline to ICANN61 and I am fine with dropping #4.

Best,

Rafik

2017-08-15 5:46 GMT+09:00 Drazek, Keith via council <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>:

Hi all,

The changes proposed by Rafik materially change the motion and I’m unable to accept them as friendly amendments.

Following many months of discussion on this topic, including during the CCWG-IG F2F meeting in Johannesburg, it has become clear that the CCWG-IG does not fit the CCWG model that was the formal output of a cross-community working group. My understanding is that the reps from ccNSO and ALAC have also reached this conclusion.

The purpose of the proposed motion is to:

1. Signal that the GNSO intends to withdraw as a chartering organization because the CCWG-IG does not fit the formal CCWG model. 2. Signal that the GNSO respects the work of the CCWG on CCWGs and we support the official model of CCWGs. 3. Signal that the GNSO respects the work of the CCWG-IG, even while we recognize it does not fit the CCWG model. 4. Signal that the GNSO intends to work with the other CCWG-IG chartering organizations to identify a replacement model so the work can continue uninterrupted. 5. Set a reasonable deadline by which the GNSO will withdraw as a chartering organization, with the expectation that the current chartering organizations will work together to develop a replacement by that date.

The changes proposed by Rafik in #4 do not sync with the purpose of the motion.

As discussed during our last GNSO Council call, in response to Avri’s suggestion that we move the target date/deadline from ICANN 60 to ICANN 61, I would accept the date shift as a friendly amendment. We agreed that the CCWG-IG reps would need to conduct intercessional work and also likely need to meet face-to-face to establish a replacement structure and I think that ICANN 61 is still a reasonable date.

In my opinion, it is the responsibility of the GNSO Council to set clear expectations and to reinforce that we believe a CCWG must fit the model the community has agreed to. Let me also say that I don’t believe the change of model or structure needs to be overly dramatic. Just change the name from Cross Community Working Group (which has an explicit definition) to Cross Community Discussion Group or Cross Community Engagement Group. Even if additional work is required, it seems 7 months ought to be plenty of time.

So, to reiterate, I would be open to accepting the date shift from ICANN 60 to ICANN 61, but the other proposed changes will not support the intent of the motion.

Regards,

Keith

*From:* council-bounces@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *James M. Bladel *Sent:* Monday, August 14, 2017 3:38 PM *To:* Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>>; council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] Proposed amendments to CCWG-IG motion

Stephanie and Colleagues –

Speaking as a Registrar rep and Seconder of the motion, I would not see these changes as friendly amendments as friendly. I will wait for Keith to respond as well.

And my concerns go beyond Resolved 4. For example, the proposed amendments would defer/delay a decision from ICANN60 to ICANN61 (Resolved 3 and 5), as well as change the decision to a conditional (Resolved 5, 6 and 7). Of all the proposed changes, I believe Resolved 7 is the least impactful (but Rafik may see this as dependent upon the other proposed amendments).

Thank you,

J.

*From: *<council-bounces@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> *Date: *Monday, August 14, 2017 at 14:26 *To: *GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> *Subject: *Re: [council] Proposed amendments to CCWG-IG motion

Does removing item 4 help? I have not been involved, but I fear that the deadline will be struck before Rafik is online to respond.

Stephanie

On 2017-08-14 10:37, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:

Rafik

This topic has been discussed on multiple occasions at the GNSO Council. Council’s issues with the CCWG have been made very clear. Asking that the motion be modified as you’re suggesting with the addition of the new #4 seems to completely ignore the various exchanges we’ve had on this topic over the last few months. Personally I could not support the motion with this additional language.

Regards

Michele

--

Mr Michele Neylon

Blacknight Solutions

Hosting, Colocation & Domains

https://www.blacknight.com/

http://blacknight.blog/

Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 <tel:+353%2059%20918%203072>

Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 <tel:+353%2059%20918%203090>

Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ <https://michele.blog/>

Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ <https://ceo.hosting/>

-------------------------------

Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty

Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845

*From: *<council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> <mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> <mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com> *Date: *Monday 14 August 2017 at 14:45 *To: *Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject: *[council] Proposed amendments to CCWG-IG motion

Hi all,

please find attached a document with proposed amendments to the CCWG-IG motion that was deferred in the last council call.

I hope they can be accepted as friendly.

Best,

Rafik

_______________________________________________

council mailing list

council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council>

_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council>

_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council