Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT
Fellow Councilors: I want to suggest a potential edit to our Council letter. Right now it reads: We expect that the CCWG-Accountability develop a Supplemental Proposal based on the input from its Chartering Organizations and the public, the GNSO Council expects also that it and other Chartering Organizations, as well as the larger community, will have an adequate opportunity to review and comment on the Proposal in a timely fashion. My suggested revision would have it read as follows: We expect that the CCWG-Accountability develop a Supplemental Proposal based on the input from its Chartering Organizations and the public, the GNSO Council expects also that it and other Chartering Organizations, reflecting the larger community, will have an adequate opportunity to review and comment on the Supplemental Proposal in a timely fashion. (changes in Bold) As the sentence notes via its reference "and the public", we have already had a public comment period on the Third Proposal. The draft language could be read to suggest that we favor another round of public comment on the anticipated Supplemental Proposal, which could prevent NTIA from receiving the Proposal in the timely manner required (delivery by mid-to-late February) that provides a substantial likelihood of completing the transition in 2016. The proposed revision emphasizes that the Chartering organizations, including the GNSO, are the proper entities to submit any additional comments on the Supplemental Proposal and can transmit the views of their constituents. I realize that some Councilors may wish to have the Supplemental Proposal subject to another round of public comment. If there is a consensus for that position then I would suggest that any such comment period be limited in duration to reflect the fact that the narrow subject of such comments would be those changes made from the Third draft in response to the recent comment period. In any event, I believe our letter should be more clear than the present draft regarding the Council's position in regard to whether an additional round of public - as opposed to Chartering Organization - comment is desired on the Supplemental Proposal we expect to see shortly. Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
Hi Phil, I support your proposed changes. Although I do believe that the current CCWG plan is to proceed as you have proposed, let's make sure that our letter can't be used to suggest something else. Thanks for picking up on this. Best, Ed Morris ---------------------------------------- From: "Phil Corwin" <psc@vlaw-dc.com> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 3:13 PM To: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT Fellow Councilors: I want to suggest a potential edit to our Council letter. Right now it reads: We expect that the CCWG-Accountability develop a Supplemental Proposal based on the input from its Chartering Organizations and the public, the GNSO Council expects also that it and other Chartering Organizations, as well as the larger community, will have an adequate opportunity to review and comment on the Proposal in a timely fashion. My suggested revision would have it read as follows: We expect that the CCWG-Accountability develop a Supplemental Proposal based on the input from its Chartering Organizations and the public, the GNSO Council expects also that it and other Chartering Organizations, reflecting the larger community, will have an adequate opportunity to review and comment on the Supplemental Proposal in a timely fashion. (changes in Bold) As the sentence notes via its reference "and the public", we have already had a public comment period on the Third Proposal. The draft language could be read to suggest that we favor another round of public comment on the anticipated Supplemental Proposal, which could prevent NTIA from receiving the Proposal in the timely manner required (delivery by mid-to-late February) that provides a substantial likelihood of completing the transition in 2016. The proposed revision emphasizes that the Chartering organizations, including the GNSO, are the proper entities to submit any additional comments on the Supplemental Proposal and can transmit the views of their constituents. I realize that some Councilors may wish to have the Supplemental Proposal subject to another round of public comment. If there is a consensus for that position then I would suggest that any such comment period be limited in duration to reflect the fact that the narrow subject of such comments would be those changes made from the Third draft in response to the recent comment period. In any event, I believe our letter should be more clear than the present draft regarding the Council's position in regard to whether an additional round of public - as opposed to Chartering Organization - comment is desired on the Supplemental Proposal we expect to see shortly. Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
I agree with Phil and Ed. The next phase of the CCWG should be to seek concurrence from the Chartering Organizations that concerns have been addressed in the supplemental report, not another full-blown public comment period. Regards, Keith From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Edward Morris Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 11:31 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org; Phil Corwin Subject: re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT Hi Phil, I support your proposed changes. Although I do believe that the current CCWG plan is to proceed as you have proposed, let's make sure that our letter can't be used to suggest something else. Thanks for picking up on this. Best, Ed Morris ________________________________ From: "Phil Corwin" <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 3:13 PM To: "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT Fellow Councilors: I want to suggest a potential edit to our Council letter. Right now it reads: We expect that the CCWG-Accountability develop a Supplemental Proposal based on the input from its Chartering Organizations and the public, the GNSO Council expects also that it and other Chartering Organizations, as well as the larger community, will have an adequate opportunity to review and comment on the Proposal in a timely fashion. My suggested revision would have it read as follows: We expect that the CCWG-Accountability develop a Supplemental Proposal based on the input from its Chartering Organizations and the public, the GNSO Council expects also that it and other Chartering Organizations, reflecting the larger community, will have an adequate opportunity to review and comment on the Supplemental Proposal in a timely fashion. (changes in Bold) As the sentence notes via its reference "and the public", we have already had a public comment period on the Third Proposal. The draft language could be read to suggest that we favor another round of public comment on the anticipated Supplemental Proposal, which could prevent NTIA from receiving the Proposal in the timely manner required (delivery by mid-to-late February) that provides a substantial likelihood of completing the transition in 2016. The proposed revision emphasizes that the Chartering organizations, including the GNSO, are the proper entities to submit any additional comments on the Supplemental Proposal and can transmit the views of their constituents. I realize that some Councilors may wish to have the Supplemental Proposal subject to another round of public comment. If there is a consensus for that position then I would suggest that any such comment period be limited in duration to reflect the fact that the narrow subject of such comments would be those changes made from the Third draft in response to the recent comment period. In any event, I believe our letter should be more clear than the present draft regarding the Council's position in regard to whether an additional round of public - as opposed to Chartering Organization - comment is desired on the Supplemental Proposal we expect to see shortly. Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
I think we should have a wait and see approach on whether or not there should be another public comment period (this last comment period was not a full-blown one, it was a micro comment period). If there are major changes in the next draft, the community should be allowed a suitable time to comment on it. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 10:40 AM To: egmorris1@toast.net; council@gnso.icann.org; Phil Corwin Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT I agree with Phil and Ed. The next phase of the CCWG should be to seek concurrence from the Chartering Organizations that concerns have been addressed in the supplemental report, not another full-blown public comment period. Regards, Keith From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Edward Morris Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 11:31 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org; Phil Corwin Subject: re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT Hi Phil, I support your proposed changes. Although I do believe that the current CCWG plan is to proceed as you have proposed, let's make sure that our letter can't be used to suggest something else. Thanks for picking up on this. Best, Ed Morris _____ From: "Phil Corwin" <psc@vlaw-dc.com> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 3:13 PM To: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT Fellow Councilors: I want to suggest a potential edit to our Council letter. Right now it reads: We expect that the CCWG-Accountability develop a Supplemental Proposal based on the input from its Chartering Organizations and the public, the GNSO Council expects also that it and other Chartering Organizations, as well as the larger community, will have an adequate opportunity to review and comment on the Proposal in a timely fashion. My suggested revision would have it read as follows: We expect that the CCWG-Accountability develop a Supplemental Proposal based on the input from its Chartering Organizations and the public, the GNSO Council expects also that it and other Chartering Organizations, reflecting the larger community, will have an adequate opportunity to review and comment on the Supplemental Proposal in a timely fashion. (changes in Bold) As the sentence notes via its reference "and the public", we have already had a public comment period on the Third Proposal. The draft language could be read to suggest that we favor another round of public comment on the anticipated Supplemental Proposal, which could prevent NTIA from receiving the Proposal in the timely manner required (delivery by mid-to-late February) that provides a substantial likelihood of completing the transition in 2016. The proposed revision emphasizes that the Chartering organizations, including the GNSO, are the proper entities to submit any additional comments on the Supplemental Proposal and can transmit the views of their constituents. I realize that some Councilors may wish to have the Supplemental Proposal subject to another round of public comment. If there is a consensus for that position then I would suggest that any such comment period be limited in duration to reflect the fact that the narrow subject of such comments would be those changes made from the Third draft in response to the recent comment period. In any event, I believe our letter should be more clear than the present draft regarding the Council's position in regard to whether an additional round of public - as opposed to Chartering Organization - comment is desired on the Supplemental Proposal we expect to see shortly. Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
The ISPCP constituency in principle agrees to the letter, also with the additional clarification Phil is suggesting. Regarding the attachment we ‘d like to suggest the edits inserted: Rec#5: bringing the bullet points in a rather qualified order from higher to lower level of support within the GNSO. These changes would make no substantive change to the points that people have requested GNSO make, but clarify the level of support that they have. Rec#11: There are concerns with the first statement: “The GNSO overall does not support this recommendation.” This should be deleted. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Phil Corwin Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 4:08 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT Fellow Councilors: I want to suggest a potential edit to our Council letter. Right now it reads: We expect that the CCWG-Accountability develop a Supplemental Proposal based on the input from its Chartering Organizations and the public, the GNSO Council expects also that it and other Chartering Organizations, as well as the larger community, will have an adequate opportunity to review and comment on the Proposal in a timely fashion. My suggested revision would have it read as follows: We expect that the CCWG-Accountability develop a Supplemental Proposal based on the input from its Chartering Organizations and the public, the GNSO Council expects also that it and other Chartering Organizations, reflecting the larger community, will have an adequate opportunity to review and comment on the Supplemental Proposal in a timely fashion. (changes in Bold) As the sentence notes via its reference “and the public”, we have already had a public comment period on the Third Proposal. The draft language could be read to suggest that we favor another round of public comment on the anticipated Supplemental Proposal, which could prevent NTIA from receiving the Proposal in the timely manner required (delivery by mid-to-late February) that provides a substantial likelihood of completing the transition in 2016. The proposed revision emphasizes that the Chartering organizations, including the GNSO, are the proper entities to submit any additional comments on the Supplemental Proposal and can transmit the views of their constituents. I realize that some Councilors may wish to have the Supplemental Proposal subject to another round of public comment. If there is a consensus for that position then I would suggest that any such comment period be limited in duration to reflect the fact that the narrow subject of such comments would be those changes made from the Third draft in response to the recent comment period. In any event, I believe our letter should be more clear than the present draft regarding the Council’s position in regard to whether an additional round of public – as opposed to Chartering Organization – comment is desired on the Supplemental Proposal we expect to see shortly. Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
Hi Wolf-Ulrich, - Rec#11: There are concerns with the first statement: "The GNSO overall does not support this recommendation." This should be deleted. I disagree. I believe that statement accurately depicts the current state of play within the GNSO and would be of great value to the CCWG chairs. If there is a belief that this statement is inaccurate I would ask that a vote be taken using the simple majority threshold and that this statement be deleted only if it is shown that the GNSO does support recommendation 11. Thanks, Ed Morris
I agree with Ed on Rec 11. I am not sure there is overall support for recommendation 11. I, for one, do not support the current wording. Julf
Julf, you're right, there is not overall support; but the reverse that the GNSO overall doesn't support rec 11 is also not correct. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Johan Helsingius Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 6:40 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Cc: egmorris1@toast.net ; WUKnoben Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT I agree with Ed on Rec 11. I am not sure there is overall support for recommendation 11. I, for one, do not support the current wording. Julf
Wolf-Ulrich,
you're right, there is not overall support; but the reverse that the GNSO overall doesn't support rec 11 is also not correct.
I agree - or, rather, to be really precise, we don't actually know how strong or weak the support is. We know not everybody supports it, and we know not everybody is against it. Therefore I support the suggestion Ed proposed to have a vote to find out the exact degree of support. Julf
I do not support any rushed votes on today's call, with no notice to my C that such a vote would be happening and no ability to get instructions, if that is what is being proposed. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Johan Helsingius Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 12:08 PM To: WUKnoben; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: egmorris1@toast.net Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT Wolf-Ulrich,
you're right, there is not overall support; but the reverse that the GNSO overall doesn't support rec 11 is also not correct.
I agree - or, rather, to be really precise, we don't actually know how strong or weak the support is. We know not everybody supports it, and we know not everybody is against it. Therefore I support the suggestion Ed proposed to have a vote to find out the exact degree of support. Julf
Perhaps not a formal vote, but an informal straw poll, if necessary? Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady (Policy) Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 1:47 PM To: 'Johan Helsingius'; 'WUKnoben'; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: egmorris1@toast.net Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT I do not support any rushed votes on today's call, with no notice to my C that such a vote would be happening and no ability to get instructions, if that is what is being proposed. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Johan Helsingius Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 12:08 PM To: WUKnoben; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: egmorris1@toast.net Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT Wolf-Ulrich,
you're right, there is not overall support; but the reverse that the GNSO overall doesn't support rec 11 is also not correct.
I agree - or, rather, to be really precise, we don't actually know how strong or weak the support is. We know not everybody supports it, and we know not everybody is against it. Therefore I support the suggestion Ed proposed to have a vote to find out the exact degree of support. Julf ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Hi Ed, as you implicitly express the accurate wording here is important. And I, too, like to see and understand the statement reflecting accurately the GNSO’s status. Maybe it’s just an issue of how I understand the word “overall” with my limited English. To me it means “covering or including all and everything”. If this is the meaning then “overall” is misplaced here. How about “broadly” or “at large”. I’m sure English natives are inventive to find something where we can all agree on. So calling for a vote on just this recommendation might not help us to make progress. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Edward Morris Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 6:15 PM To: Phil Corwin ; council@gnso.icann.org ; WUKnoben Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT Hi Wolf-Ulrich, - Rec#11: There are concerns with the first statement: “The GNSO overall does not support this recommendation.” This should be deleted. I disagree. I believe that statement accurately depicts the current state of play within the GNSO and would be of great value to the CCWG chairs. If there is a belief that this statement is inaccurate I would ask that a vote be taken using the simple majority threshold and that this statement be deleted only if it is shown that the GNSO does support recommendation 11. Thanks, Ed Morris
Hi all - Great thread on this, and Rec #11 is definitely an area of focus for our response, so we want to be clear. If memory serves, our position on this Recommendation was more nuanced than "support" or "opposed." Most SG/C comments noted the 2/3rds vote of the Board requirement to reject GAC advice as a deal-breaker. Some SGs and Cs (BC and RySG, I believe) said they did support other components of Rec #11, specifically the definition of GAC Consensus as Lacking Formal Objection. Stichting these together, our response would appear to be broad opposition to the 2/3rds vote threshold, and support/non-opposition to keep the current definition of GAC Consensus. In effect, the GNSO wants to preserve the status quo on both points. Have I got that straight? If so, we need to wordsmith this in to our Rec #11 response so it is clear to the CCWG Co-Chairs. Thanks- J. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of 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: Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 11:51 To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT Hi Ed, as you implicitly express the accurate wording here is important. And I, too, like to see and understand the statement reflecting accurately the GNSO's status. Maybe it's just an issue of how I understand the word "overall" with my limited English. To me it means "covering or including all and everything". If this is the meaning then "overall" is misplaced here. How about "broadly" or "at large". I'm sure English natives are inventive to find something where we can all agree on. So calling for a vote on just this recommendation might not help us to make progress. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Edward Morris<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 6:15 PM To: Phil Corwin<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> ; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> ; WUKnoben<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT Hi Wolf-Ulrich, - Rec#11: There are concerns with the first statement: "The GNSO overall does not support this recommendation." This should be deleted. I disagree. I believe that statement accurately depicts the current state of play within the GNSO and would be of great value to the CCWG chairs. If there is a belief that this statement is inaccurate I would ask that a vote be taken using the simple majority threshold and that this statement be deleted only if it is shown that the GNSO does support recommendation 11. Thanks, Ed Morris
Thanks all. A couple of observations: 1. The RySG and BC indicated a willingness to support the 2/3 threshold IF certain other terms were included, so it's not accurate to say everyone in the GNSO does not support 2/3 at all. We may not support the proposal as currently written, but that doesn't mean 2/3 won't receive some support pending incorporation of those recommended changes. 2. The current definition of GAC consensus is their current operating procedure, but that definition IS OPEN TO CHANGE BY THE GAC at any time. Incorporating that definition into the bylaws is brand new, and it is the other half of the ST-18 package (with the 2/3 threshold). As we discuss Recommendation 11, everyone should remember that the 2/3 threshold (an increase of two Board votes) was a tradeoff for getting the GAC consensus definition incorporated into the bylaws. The latter point is an NTIA requirement. If we think we can be successful in eliminating 2/3 while incorporating the GAC consensus definition into the bylaws, great, but there's a risk to the CCWG and IANA transition in doing so. I think a question for everyone is, "Could you support the 2/3 language IF the additional requirements demanded by the RySG and BC are included in the next CCWG report?" Regards, Keith From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 1:01 PM To: WUKnoben; egmorris1@toast.net; Phil Corwin; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT Hi all - Great thread on this, and Rec #11 is definitely an area of focus for our response, so we want to be clear. If memory serves, our position on this Recommendation was more nuanced than "support" or "opposed." Most SG/C comments noted the 2/3rds vote of the Board requirement to reject GAC advice as a deal-breaker. Some SGs and Cs (BC and RySG, I believe) said they did support other components of Rec #11, specifically the definition of GAC Consensus as Lacking Formal Objection. Stichting these together, our response would appear to be broad opposition to the 2/3rds vote threshold, and support/non-opposition to keep the current definition of GAC Consensus. In effect, the GNSO wants to preserve the status quo on both points. Have I got that straight? If so, we need to wordsmith this in to our Rec #11 response so it is clear to the CCWG Co-Chairs. Thanks- J. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of 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: Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 11:51 To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT Hi Ed, as you implicitly express the accurate wording here is important. And I, too, like to see and understand the statement reflecting accurately the GNSO's status. Maybe it's just an issue of how I understand the word "overall" with my limited English. To me it means "covering or including all and everything". If this is the meaning then "overall" is misplaced here. How about "broadly" or "at large". I'm sure English natives are inventive to find something where we can all agree on. So calling for a vote on just this recommendation might not help us to make progress. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Edward Morris<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 6:15 PM To: Phil Corwin<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> ; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> ; WUKnoben<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT Hi Wolf-Ulrich, - Rec#11: There are concerns with the first statement: "The GNSO overall does not support this recommendation." This should be deleted. I disagree. I believe that statement accurately depicts the current state of play within the GNSO and would be of great value to the CCWG chairs. If there is a belief that this statement is inaccurate I would ask that a vote be taken using the simple majority threshold and that this statement be deleted only if it is shown that the GNSO does support recommendation 11. Thanks, Ed Morris
Keith,
As we discuss Recommendation 11, everyone should remember that the 2/3 threshold (an increase of two Board votes) was a tradeoff for getting the GAC consensus definition incorporated into the bylaws.
Thanks for that reminder - it goes to the core of my issue with recommendations 1, 10 and 11. It appears as if (and I hope I am wrong) that the GAC is using the ICANN transition as an opportunity to increase its power and influence in ICANN. To me, such a situation doesn't serve the best interests of the Internet community as a whole, and I don't think we should accept it just because we don't want to be the ones to jeopardize the transition. I think we should strive for a suitable balance that works for all parties involved and ensures a multistakeholder future without risk of either external or internal capture. That is of course only my own, personal (and probably naive) opinion. Julf
+1 Julf -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Johan Helsingius Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 12:53 PM To: Drazek, Keith; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: WUKnoben Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT Keith,
As we discuss Recommendation 11, everyone should remember that the 2/3 threshold (an increase of two Board votes) was a tradeoff for getting the GAC consensus definition incorporated into the bylaws.
Thanks for that reminder - it goes to the core of my issue with recommendations 1, 10 and 11. It appears as if (and I hope I am wrong) that the GAC is using the ICANN transition as an opportunity to increase its power and influence in ICANN. To me, such a situation doesn't serve the best interests of the Internet community as a whole, and I don't think we should accept it just because we don't want to be the ones to jeopardize the transition. I think we should strive for a suitable balance that works for all parties involved and ensures a multistakeholder future without risk of either external or internal capture. That is of course only my own, personal (and probably naive) opinion. Julf
Hi Keith, I think for a few of us it is not so much recommendation 11 itself that generates concern (although I feel compelled to point out that recommendation 11 was adopted in a straw poll in a call with a higher than normal percentage of GAC members, and has been opposed by nearly a 2-1 margin in public comments) but rather the combination of recommendations 1, 10 and 11 that causes concern. Recommendation 1 allows the GAC to fully participate in the community mechanism on equal terms with the other SOACs. Recommendation 10 allows the GAC to avoid the accountability reviews other SOACs are subject to. Recommendation 11 not only allows the GAC to maintain its special advisory role but increases the weight it must be given. It has been a principle tenet of the NTIA that governments not use the transition to increase their power within the ICANN ecosystem. There are many ways to massage this but the fact remains that if these three recommendations are adopted: 1. For the first time ever the GAC will have input into Board composition, 2. For the first time ever the GAC will have a direct say in policy development and retention or overturn of policy as part of the community, 3. Yet the GAC will not be subject to the same accountability oversight as other parts of the community, 4. While not only maintaining but increasing its privileged advisory role to the Board. I can safely say that it is this combination of recommendations that is absolutely unacceptable to the noncommercial community and any repositioning or repackaging is not going to work. While I now, and I believe my SG will, certainly support the fine suggestions made by RySG and the BC, and thank you for your work, they do not address the principle problem which is the effect the combination of these recommendations has on GAC power. Regarding recommendation 11, I also feel compelled to point out that the community rejected the proposed increase of the threshold for the Board to override GAC advice just over a year ago ( https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-gac-advice-2014-08-15-en). This sort of double dipping, hostage taking ( "give us what we want or you do not get the transition, even though you just rejected what we want" ), is not only unseemly but represents exactly that which many of us fear: An ICANN where governments use their considerable power and strength to override the community process. It's about more than 2/3. It's about the integrity and sustainability of a true bottom up multi-stakeholder governance model. My stakeholder group wants this transition, I want this transition, but not at all costs. Best, Ed Morris ---------------------------------------- From: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@Verisign.com> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 6:32 PM To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "egmorris1@toast.net" <egmorris1@toast.net>, "Phil Corwin" <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT Thanks all. A couple of observations: 1. The RySG and BC indicated a willingness to support the 2/3 threshold IF certain other terms were included, so it's not accurate to say everyone in the GNSO does not support 2/3 at all. We may not support the proposal as currently written, but that doesn't mean 2/3 won't receive some support pending incorporation of those recommended changes. 2. The current definition of GAC consensus is their current operating procedure, but that definition IS OPEN TO CHANGE BY THE GAC at any time. Incorporating that definition into the bylaws is brand new, and it is the other half of the ST-18 package (with the 2/3 threshold). As we discuss Recommendation 11, everyone should remember that the 2/3 threshold (an increase of two Board votes) was a tradeoff for getting the GAC consensus definition incorporated into the bylaws. The latter point is an NTIA requirement. If we think we can be successful in eliminating 2/3 while incorporating the GAC consensus definition into the bylaws, great, but there's a risk to the CCWG and IANA transition in doing so. I think a question for everyone is, "Could you support the 2/3 language IF the additional requirements demanded by the RySG and BC are included in the next CCWG report?" Regards, Keith From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 1:01 PM To: WUKnoben; egmorris1@toast.net; Phil Corwin; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT Hi all - Great thread on this, and Rec #11 is definitely an area of focus for our response, so we want to be clear. If memory serves, our position on this Recommendation was more nuanced than "support" or "opposed." Most SG/C comments noted the 2/3rds vote of the Board requirement to reject GAC advice as a deal-breaker. Some SGs and Cs (BC and RySG, I believe) said they did support other components of Rec #11, specifically the definition of GAC Consensus as Lacking Formal Objection. Stichting these together, our response would appear to be broad opposition to the 2/3rds vote threshold, and support/non-opposition to keep the current definition of GAC Consensus. In effect, the GNSO wants to preserve the status quo on both points. Have I got that straight? If so, we need to wordsmith this in to our Rec #11 response so it is clear to the CCWG Co-Chairs. Thanks- J. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Date: Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 11:51 To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT Hi Ed, as you implicitly express the accurate wording here is important. And I, too, like to see and understand the statement reflecting accurately the GNSO's status. Maybe it's just an issue of how I understand the word "overall" with my limited English. To me it means "covering or including all and everything". If this is the meaning then "overall" is misplaced here. How about "broadly" or "at large". I'm sure English natives are inventive to find something where we can all agree on. So calling for a vote on just this recommendation might not help us to make progress. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Edward Morris Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 6:15 PM To: Phil Corwin ; council@gnso.icann.org ; WUKnoben Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT Hi Wolf-Ulrich, - Rec#11: There are concerns with the first statement: "The GNSO overall does not support this recommendation." This should be deleted. I disagree. I believe that statement accurately depicts the current state of play within the GNSO and would be of great value to the CCWG chairs. If there is a belief that this statement is inaccurate I would ask that a vote be taken using the simple majority threshold and that this statement be deleted only if it is shown that the GNSO does support recommendation 11. Thanks, Ed Morris
Fully agree with Ed cumulative analysis and its probable result. Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg On 21 Jan 2016, at 13:08, Edward Morris wrote:
Hi Keith,
I think for a few of us it is not so much recommendation 11 itself that generates concern (although I feel compelled to point out that recommendation 11 was adopted in a straw poll in a call with a higher than normal percentage of GAC members, and has been opposed by nearly a 2-1 margin in public comments) but rather the combination of recommendations 1, 10 and 11 that causes concern.
Recommendation 1 allows the GAC to fully participate in the community mechanism on equal terms with the other SOACs.
Recommendation 10 allows the GAC to avoid the accountability reviews other SOACs are subject to.
Recommendation 11 not only allows the GAC to maintain its special advisory role but increases the weight it must be given.
It has been a principle tenet of the NTIA that governments not use the transition to increase their power within the ICANN ecosystem.
There are many ways to massage this but the fact remains that if these three recommendations are adopted:
1. For the first time ever the GAC will have input into Board composition,
2. For the first time ever the GAC will have a direct say in policy development and retention or overturn of policy as part of the community,
3. Yet the GAC will not be subject to the same accountability oversight as other parts of the community,
4. While not only maintaining but increasing its privileged advisory role to the Board.
I can safely say that it is this combination of recommendations that is absolutely unacceptable to the noncommercial community and any repositioning or repackaging is not going to work.
While I now, and I believe my SG will, certainly support the fine suggestions made by RySG and the BC, and thank you for your work, they do not address the principle problem which is the effect the combination of these recommendations has on GAC power.
Regarding recommendation 11, I also feel compelled to point out that the community rejected the proposed increase of the threshold for the Board to override GAC advice just over a year ago ( https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-gac-advice-2014-08-15-en). This sort of double dipping, hostage taking ( "give us what we want or you do not get the transition, even though you just rejected what we want" ), is not only unseemly but represents exactly that which many of us fear: An ICANN where governments use their considerable power and strength to override the community process.
It's about more than 2/3. It's about the integrity and sustainability of a true bottom up multi-stakeholder governance model. My stakeholder group wants this transition, I want this transition, but not at all costs.
Best,
Ed Morris
---------------------------------------- From: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@Verisign.com> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 6:32 PM To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "egmorris1@toast.net" <egmorris1@toast.net>, "Phil Corwin" <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT
Thanks all. A couple of observations:
1. The RySG and BC indicated a willingness to support the 2/3 threshold IF certain other terms were included, so it's not accurate to say everyone in the GNSO does not support 2/3 at all. We may not support the proposal as currently written, but that doesn't mean 2/3 won't receive some support pending incorporation of those recommended changes.
2. The current definition of GAC consensus is their current operating procedure, but that definition IS OPEN TO CHANGE BY THE GAC at any time. Incorporating that definition into the bylaws is brand new, and it is the other half of the ST-18 package (with the 2/3 threshold).
As we discuss Recommendation 11, everyone should remember that the 2/3 threshold (an increase of two Board votes) was a tradeoff for getting the GAC consensus definition incorporated into the bylaws. The latter point is an NTIA requirement. If we think we can be successful in eliminating 2/3 while incorporating the GAC consensus definition into the bylaws, great, but there's a risk to the CCWG and IANA transition in doing so.
I think a question for everyone is, "Could you support the 2/3 language IF the additional requirements demanded by the RySG and BC are included in the next CCWG report?"
Regards,
Keith
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 1:01 PM To: WUKnoben; egmorris1@toast.net; Phil Corwin; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT
Hi all -
Great thread on this, and Rec #11 is definitely an area of focus for our response, so we want to be clear.
If memory serves, our position on this Recommendation was more nuanced than "support" or "opposed." Most SG/C comments noted the 2/3rds vote of the Board requirement to reject GAC advice as a deal-breaker. Some SGs and Cs (BC and RySG, I believe) said they did support other components of Rec #11, specifically the definition of GAC Consensus as Lacking Formal Objection.
Stichting these together, our response would appear to be broad opposition to the 2/3rds vote threshold, and support/non-opposition to keep the current definition of GAC Consensus. In effect, the GNSO wants to preserve the status quo on both points.
Have I got that straight? If so, we need to wordsmith this in to our Rec #11 response so it is clear to the CCWG Co-Chairs.
Thanks-
J.
From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Date: Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 11:51 To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT
Hi Ed,
as you implicitly express the accurate wording here is important. And I, too, like to see and understand the statement reflecting accurately the GNSO's status.
Maybe it's just an issue of how I understand the word "overall" with my limited English. To me it means "covering or including all and everything". If this is the meaning then "overall" is misplaced here.
How about "broadly" or "at large".
I'm sure English natives are inventive to find something where we can all agree on. So calling for a vote on just this recommendation might not help us to make progress.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Edward Morris
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 6:15 PM
To: Phil Corwin ; council@gnso.icann.org ; WUKnoben
Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT
Hi Wolf-Ulrich,
- Rec#11: There are concerns with the first statement: "The GNSO overall does not support this recommendation." This should be deleted.
I disagree.
I believe that statement accurately depicts the current state of play within the GNSO and would be of great value to the CCWG chairs. If there is a belief that this statement is inaccurate I would ask that a vote be taken using the simple majority threshold and that this statement be deleted only if it is shown that the GNSO does support recommendation 11.
Thanks,
Ed Morris
+1 to much of what Ed said. Transition should not be used to enhance government authority. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Edward Morris Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 1:08 PM To: James M. Bladel; WUKnoben; Phil Corwin; council@gnso.icann.org; Drazek, Keith Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT Hi Keith, I think for a few of us it is not so much recommendation 11 itself that generates concern (although I feel compelled to point out that recommendation 11 was adopted in a straw poll in a call with a higher than normal percentage of GAC members, and has been opposed by nearly a 2-1 margin in public comments) but rather the combination of recommendations 1, 10 and 11 that causes concern. Recommendation 1 allows the GAC to fully participate in the community mechanism on equal terms with the other SOACs. Recommendation 10 allows the GAC to avoid the accountability reviews other SOACs are subject to. Recommendation 11 not only allows the GAC to maintain its special advisory role but increases the weight it must be given. It has been a principle tenet of the NTIA that governments not use the transition to increase their power within the ICANN ecosystem. There are many ways to massage this but the fact remains that if these three recommendations are adopted: 1. For the first time ever the GAC will have input into Board composition, 2. For the first time ever the GAC will have a direct say in policy development and retention or overturn of policy as part of the community, 3. Yet the GAC will not be subject to the same accountability oversight as other parts of the community, 4. While not only maintaining but increasing its privileged advisory role to the Board. I can safely say that it is this combination of recommendations that is absolutely unacceptable to the noncommercial community and any repositioning or repackaging is not going to work. While I now, and I believe my SG will, certainly support the fine suggestions made by RySG and the BC, and thank you for your work, they do not address the principle problem which is the effect the combination of these recommendations has on GAC power. Regarding recommendation 11, I also feel compelled to point out that the community rejected the proposed increase of the threshold for the Board to override GAC advice just over a year ago ( https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-gac-advice-2014-08-15-en) . This sort of double dipping, hostage taking ( "give us what we want or you do not get the transition, even though you just rejected what we want" ), is not only unseemly but represents exactly that which many of us fear: An ICANN where governments use their considerable power and strength to override the community process. It's about more than 2/3. It's about the integrity and sustainability of a true bottom up multi-stakeholder governance model. My stakeholder group wants this transition, I want this transition, but not at all costs. Best, Ed Morris _____ From: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@Verisign.com> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 6:32 PM To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "egmorris1@toast.net" <egmorris1@toast.net>, "Phil Corwin" <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT Thanks all. A couple of observations: 1. The RySG and BC indicated a willingness to support the 2/3 threshold IF certain other terms were included, so it's not accurate to say everyone in the GNSO does not support 2/3 at all. We may not support the proposal as currently written, but that doesn't mean 2/3 won't receive some support pending incorporation of those recommended changes. 2. The current definition of GAC consensus is their current operating procedure, but that definition IS OPEN TO CHANGE BY THE GAC at any time. Incorporating that definition into the bylaws is brand new, and it is the other half of the ST-18 package (with the 2/3 threshold). As we discuss Recommendation 11, everyone should remember that the 2/3 threshold (an increase of two Board votes) was a tradeoff for getting the GAC consensus definition incorporated into the bylaws. The latter point is an NTIA requirement. If we think we can be successful in eliminating 2/3 while incorporating the GAC consensus definition into the bylaws, great, but there's a risk to the CCWG and IANA transition in doing so. I think a question for everyone is, "Could you support the 2/3 language IF the additional requirements demanded by the RySG and BC are included in the next CCWG report?" Regards, Keith From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 1:01 PM To: WUKnoben; egmorris1@toast.net; Phil Corwin; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT Hi all - Great thread on this, and Rec #11 is definitely an area of focus for our response, so we want to be clear. If memory serves, our position on this Recommendation was more nuanced than "support" or "opposed." Most SG/C comments noted the 2/3rds vote of the Board requirement to reject GAC advice as a deal-breaker. Some SGs and Cs (BC and RySG, I believe) said they did support other components of Rec #11, specifically the definition of GAC Consensus as Lacking Formal Objection. Stichting these together, our response would appear to be broad opposition to the 2/3rds vote threshold, and support/non-opposition to keep the current definition of GAC Consensus. In effect, the GNSO wants to preserve the status quo on both points. Have I got that straight? If so, we need to wordsmith this in to our Rec #11 response so it is clear to the CCWG Co-Chairs. Thanks- J. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Date: Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 11:51 To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT Hi Ed, as you implicitly express the accurate wording here is important. And I, too, like to see and understand the statement reflecting accurately the GNSO's status. Maybe it's just an issue of how I understand the word "overall" with my limited English. To me it means "covering or including all and everything". If this is the meaning then "overall" is misplaced here. How about "broadly" or "at large". I'm sure English natives are inventive to find something where we can all agree on. So calling for a vote on just this recommendation might not help us to make progress. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Edward Morris <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 6:15 PM To: Phil Corwin <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> ; council@gnso.icann.org ; WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT Hi Wolf-Ulrich, - Rec#11: There are concerns with the first statement: "The GNSO overall does not support this recommendation." This should be deleted. I disagree. I believe that statement accurately depicts the current state of play within the GNSO and would be of great value to the CCWG chairs. If there is a belief that this statement is inaccurate I would ask that a vote be taken using the simple majority threshold and that this statement be deleted only if it is shown that the GNSO does support recommendation 11. Thanks, Ed Morris
Ed, Thank you for expressing my concerns much more clearly and eloquently than I managed to. Julf On 21/01/16 20:08, Edward Morris wrote:
Hi Keith,
I think for a few of us it is not so much recommendation 11 itself that generates concern (although I feel compelled to point out that recommendation 11 was adopted in a straw poll in a call with a higher than normal percentage of GAC members, and has been opposed by nearly a 2-1 margin in public comments) but rather the combination of recommendations 1, 10 and 11 that causes concern.
Recommendation 1 allows the GAC to fully participate in the community mechanism on equal terms with the other SOACs.
Recommendation 10 allows the GAC to avoid the accountability reviews other SOACs are subject to.
Recommendation 11 not only allows the GAC to maintain its special advisory role but increases the weight it must be given.
It has been a principle tenet of the NTIA that governments not use the transition to increase their power within the ICANN ecosystem.
There are many ways to massage this but the fact remains that if these three recommendations are adopted:
1. For the first time ever the GAC will have input into Board composition,
2. For the first time ever the GAC will have a direct say in policy development and retention or overturn of policy as part of the community,
3. Yet the GAC will not be subject to the same accountability oversight as other parts of the community,
4. While not only maintaining but increasing its privileged advisory role to the Board.
I can safely say that it is this combination of recommendations that is absolutely unacceptable to the noncommercial community and any repositioning or repackaging is not going to work.
While I now, and I believe my SG will, certainly support the fine suggestions made by RySG and the BC, and thank you for your work, they do not address the principle problem which is the effect the combination of these recommendations has on GAC power.
Regarding recommendation 11, I also feel compelled to point out that the community rejected the proposed increase of the threshold for the Board to override GAC advice just over a year ago ( https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-gac-advice-2014-08-15-en). This sort of double dipping, hostage taking ( "give us what we want or you do not get the transition, even though you just rejected what we want" ), is not only unseemly but represents exactly that which many of us fear: An ICANN where governments use their considerable power and strength to override the community process.
It's about more than 2/3. It's about the integrity and sustainability of a true bottom up multi-stakeholder governance model. My stakeholder group wants this transition, I want this transition, but not at all costs.
Best,
Ed Morris
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *From*: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@Verisign.com> *Sent*: Thursday, January 21, 2016 6:32 PM *To*: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "egmorris1@toast.net" <egmorris1@toast.net>, "Phil Corwin" <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject*: RE: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT
Thanks all. A couple of observations:
1. The RySG and BC indicated a willingness to support the 2/3 threshold IF certain other terms were included, so it’s not accurate to say everyone in the GNSO does not support 2/3 at all. We may not support the proposal as currently written, but that doesn’t mean 2/3 won’t receive some support pending incorporation of those recommended changes.
2. The current definition of GAC consensus is their current operating procedure, but that definition IS OPEN TO CHANGE BY THE GAC at any time. Incorporating that definition into the bylaws is brand new, and it is the other half of the ST-18 package (with the 2/3 threshold).
As we discuss Recommendation 11, everyone should remember that the 2/3 threshold (an increase of two Board votes) was a tradeoff for getting the GAC consensus definition incorporated into the bylaws. The latter point is an NTIA requirement. If we think we can be successful in eliminating 2/3 while incorporating the GAC consensus definition into the bylaws, great, but there’s a risk to the CCWG and IANA transition in doing so.
I think a question for everyone is, “Could you support the 2/3 language IF the additional requirements demanded by the RySG and BC are included in the next CCWG report?”
Regards,
Keith
*From:*owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *James M. Bladel *Sent:* Thursday, January 21, 2016 1:01 PM *To:* WUKnoben; egmorris1@toast.net; Phil Corwin; council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT
Hi all -
Great thread on this, and Rec #11 is definitely an area of focus for our response, so we want to be clear.
If memory serves, our position on this Recommendation was more nuanced than “support” or “opposed.” Most SG/C comments noted the 2/3rds vote of the Board requirement to reject GAC advice as a deal-breaker. Some SGs and Cs (BC and RySG, I believe) said they did support other components of Rec #11, specifically the definition of GAC Consensus as Lacking Formal Objection.
Stichting these together, our response would appear to be broad opposition to the 2/3rds vote threshold, and support/non-opposition to keep the current definition of GAC Consensus. In effect, the GNSO wants to preserve the status quo on both points.
Have I got that straight? If so, we need to wordsmith this in to our Rec #11 response so it is clear to the CCWG Co-Chairs.
Thanks—
J.
*From: *<owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of 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: *Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 11:51 *To: *Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> *Subject: *Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT
Hi Ed,
as you implicitly express the accurate wording here is important. And I, too, like to see and understand the statement reflecting accurately the GNSO’s status.
Maybe it’s just an issue of how I understand the word “overall” with my limited English. To me it means “covering or including all and everything”. If this is the meaning then “overall” is misplaced here.
How about “broadly” or “at large”.
I’m sure English natives are inventive to find something where we can all agree on. So calling for a vote on just this recommendation might not help us to make progress.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:*Edward Morris <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>
*Sent:*Thursday, January 21, 2016 6:15 PM
*To:*Phil Corwin <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> ; council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> ; WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>
*Subject:*Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT
Hi Wolf-Ulrich,
- Rec#11: There are concerns with the first statement: “The GNSO overall does not support this recommendation.” This should be deleted.
I disagree.
I believe that statement accurately depicts the current state of play within the GNSO and would be of great value to the CCWG chairs. If there is a belief that this statement is inaccurate I would ask that a vote be taken using the simple majority threshold and that this statement be deleted only if it is shown that the GNSO does support recommendation 11.
Thanks,
Ed Morris
Not just opposition to the 2/3 vote threshold, but the triggering of an automatic requirement for the Board to vote. We need to keep both concepts clear and included. Thanks! Best, Paul From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 12:01 PM To: WUKnoben; egmorris1@toast.net; Phil Corwin; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT Hi all - Great thread on this, and Rec #11 is definitely an area of focus for our response, so we want to be clear. If memory serves, our position on this Recommendation was more nuanced than "support" or "opposed." Most SG/C comments noted the 2/3rds vote of the Board requirement to reject GAC advice as a deal-breaker. Some SGs and Cs (BC and RySG, I believe) said they did support other components of Rec #11, specifically the definition of GAC Consensus as Lacking Formal Objection. Stichting these together, our response would appear to be broad opposition to the 2/3rds vote threshold, and support/non-opposition to keep the current definition of GAC Consensus. In effect, the GNSO wants to preserve the status quo on both points. Have I got that straight? If so, we need to wordsmith this in to our Rec #11 response so it is clear to the CCWG Co-Chairs. Thanks- J. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Date: Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 11:51 To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT Hi Ed, as you implicitly express the accurate wording here is important. And I, too, like to see and understand the statement reflecting accurately the GNSO's status. Maybe it's just an issue of how I understand the word "overall" with my limited English. To me it means "covering or including all and everything". If this is the meaning then "overall" is misplaced here. How about "broadly" or "at large". I'm sure English natives are inventive to find something where we can all agree on. So calling for a vote on just this recommendation might not help us to make progress. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Edward Morris <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 6:15 PM To: Phil Corwin <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> ; council@gnso.icann.org ; WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT Hi Wolf-Ulrich, - Rec#11: There are concerns with the first statement: "The GNSO overall does not support this recommendation." This should be deleted. I disagree. I believe that statement accurately depicts the current state of play within the GNSO and would be of great value to the CCWG chairs. If there is a belief that this statement is inaccurate I would ask that a vote be taken using the simple majority threshold and that this statement be deleted only if it is shown that the GNSO does support recommendation 11. Thanks, Ed Morris
Hi Wolf-Ulrich, ?I'm very happy to work with you and others on the language. I've learned over the past week that James is a master wordsmith; perhaps he has an idea as to how to improve the language. ?I take "overall" to mean "all things considered", as in 'after considering all inputs' the GNSO... ?Thanks for clarifying - I'm sure we can find some language that will be clearer both to yourself and to many others for whom this may be confusing. It's great you picked this up, we're looking for clarity and accuracy here for everyone. Thanks, Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 5:51 PM To: egmorris1@toast.net, "Phil Corwin" <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT Hi Ed, as you implicitly express the accurate wording here is important. And I, too, like to see and understand the statement reflecting accurately the GNSO's status. Maybe it's just an issue of how I understand the word "overall" with my limited English. To me it means "covering or including all and everything". If this is the meaning then "overall" is misplaced here. How about "broadly" or "at large". I'm sure English natives are inventive to find something where we can all agree on. So calling for a vote on just this recommendation might not help us to make progress. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Edward Morris Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 6:15 PM To: Phil Corwin ; council@gnso.icann.org ; WUKnoben Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT Hi Wolf-Ulrich, - Rec#11: There are concerns with the first statement: "The GNSO overall does not support this recommendation." This should be deleted. I disagree. I believe that statement accurately depicts the current state of play within the GNSO and would be of great value to the CCWG chairs. If there is a belief that this statement is inaccurate I would ask that a vote be taken using the simple majority threshold and that this statement be deleted only if it is shown that the GNSO does support recommendation 11. Thanks, Ed Morris
participants (8)
-
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. -
Drazek, Keith -
Edward Morris -
James M. Bladel -
Johan Helsingius -
Paul McGrady (Policy) -
Phil Corwin -
WUKnoben