Dear all, Please note the revised attendance with Jennifer Standiford and Volker Greimann who were also present Please find the attendance, mp3 recording and AC room chat below with transcription attached of the CCWG Subteam call held on the 11th January 2016 at 1900 UTC. mp3 recording: https://icann.box.com/shared/static/feowuhsup4q57d7cfdgd0wh7x1e62pkc.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=zZ8xDDIU4PY795Cika7Nmy-2FNugFnAwo9az5qWXNwufSMQLInl3Lf250uaHdngRQxF-2FVmTi-2FQopnPl-2B8-2F-2FQMLoa7g-2BwsiGeBuHgRJgTWcFvE-3D_nEX-2FaOijqgcJlSz5SkmueJu3tRbmaDiuX89gT35tStEeSHP9whdoceObpMxYsFLQddiMZpQjIv8dk6BsBGSJXH7VWN4SGLCJgbGKCk6E-2FTErjF4OKNQt65Dk9NF54IJ9kQpmDNySj7bbNz9G4dXi5BgbCZotTx8KNfyeB0z00f8KsMfETeTNKd7vy2kKI7tttQUIwid4NAhxXgT3nZYwmkIdBHQjcOqRDbQxuv4WoCCdZJlwMZd-2Bt-2BBG0-2B5Mq78CDSryXE2KkXl2NcHeNlBLDI4IOlPQtXUhGep-2BMpc65ZGCbrnqk0tle-2FsrvO4r-2B-2BBgfCBfzCfQthTCi3Tlm6-2Fhwi-2B1w5uUwpHLrjpVLnBCrHIxesFo6GdsSq97Dc4kSDNRNCpgCNBlFx6sMrx02i710ZWmDmk2vZUeLTPx8NS98hIuSvR5VL6omBdOjKTvD4W2hmjaH-2BbQ80Fv3IhW3IKq5tF-2Fc9F534464ypyv0ghMsx1Y5s7QhAq6lIwcZ5SXw-2Fz> Attendance: James Bladel, Keith Drazek, Phil Corwin, Edward Morris, Jennifer Standiford and Volker Greimann. Apologies: Paul McGrady and Marika Konings Staff: Julie Hedlund, Mary Wong, Glen de St Gery, Lars Hoffmann, Terri Agnew Thank you. Kind regards, Terri AC Chat: Terri Agnew: (1/11/2016 09:40) Dear all, welcome to the CCWG - SubTeam call on Monday 11th January 2016 at 1900 UTC James Bladel: (13:02) Apologies for the formality. :) Mary Wong: (13:10) In transmitting the result of the vote on the motion to the CCWG and others, whether or not it was a unanimous, supermajority, majority or other vote can be noted. Keith Drazek: (13:10) Agree with James. If anyone really wants formality, we should go that route. Lars Hoffmann: (13:12) got it Mary Wong: (13:16) We can tag these columns as "GNSO Council comments" rather than just "Comments" and add a note (either running across each page or as a footnote) on referring to the full SG/C submissions for details. Mary Wong: (13:25) It may also be helpful here to make clear if "qualifications" mean "conditions" for support (contrast, e.g., Rec 3 and Rec 4). Edward Morris: (13:32) Disconnected. Calling back in. James Bladel: (13:32) ok, no worries. Edward Morris: (13:33) back Mary Wong: (13:36) It also reads as though the full GNSO believes these two Stress Tests are misleading (unless that in fact is the case?) Terri Agnew: (13:36) @Phil, you cut out for a moment but you are back Mary Wong: (13:37) If indeed that is the case, maybe it should just be a statement - what Phil is now suggesting. James Bladel: (13:37) Ok. Let's flag #3 for potential removal. Keith Drazek: (13:41) Two groups disagreeing does not mean the GNSO won't reach consensus on a Recommendation. We just need a simple majority of all. Keith Drazek: (13:42) I think the key question for this process and our output to the CCWG is to identify any Recommendations that won't currently receive a simple majority of support from the GNSO as a whole. Mary Wong: (13:53) @Phil, if the GNSO Council in fact is requesting that the CCWG prepare a Supplemental Proposal based on these comments, then it probably should be a Resolved clause. Philip Corwin: (13:54) Thanks Mary. Agree Mary Wong: (13:54) Something like "The GNSO Council requests that the CCWG consider the Council's feedback as regards Rec X, Y, Z etc, and prepare a Supplemental Proposal that addresses these suggested conditions and modifications." James Bladel: (13:55) Mary - that works, but can we include any Recommendat htat has "limited" or "condidttional" support as those Recs? Mary Wong: (13:55) If that's what the Council is requesting, then, sure! Philip Corwin: (14:02) +1 to Keith's point Mary Wong: (14:02) @James, I'm dropping to check that the next call is/isn't in a different AC room. James Bladel: (14:02) ok. thanks.