Agree with Keith's recollection and not that it is reflected in the chat from yesterday's call: PAUL MCGRADY - IPC: (23:39) OK to strike my proposed dependent clause about materiality. Keith Drazek (RySG): (23:40) Thanks Paul. I think it's a good compromise. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith Sent: Friday, 22 January 2016 8:59 AM To: James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>; Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>; GNSO Council List (council@gnso.icann.org) <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] For final review - GNSO Council letter on CCWG Accountability Third Draft Proposal Thanks James and Marika. One comment. During yesterday's call, in the Adobe Chat, Paul agreed to withdraw his suggestion and remove the last part of the paragraph (in red below): * The GNSO Council expects that its Response, all of the GNSO SG/C public comments, and the GNSO Council and community's suggested conditions, modifications and concerns will be fully taken into account by the CCWG-Accountability. 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, and possibly the larger community, will have an adequate opportunity to review and comment on the Supplemental Proposal in a timely fashion, particularly if there are material changes to the recommendations in any Supplemental Proposal.[MK1] We agreed to include "and possibly the larger community" and just leave it at that. I'm not going to hold up finalizing the communication over this correction, but it should be amended to reflect the AC discussion. Otherwise, I think the letter and table accurately reflect the discussion and is ready to go. Thanks! 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: Friday, January 22, 2016 11:42 AM To: Marika Konings; GNSO Council List (council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>) Subject: Re: [council] For final review - GNSO Council letter on CCWG Accountability Third Draft Proposal Hi folks - Just a reminder that we are looking to transmit this to the CCWG -today-. So please give it one final review & let Marika & I know if you spot any errors or omissions. Also, if there are no objections, I propose that I could post this to the CCWG list in addition to sending it directly to the Co-Chairs. This would increase visibility and be a show of support for the GNSO participants on the CCWG. Any objections? Thanks- J. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 16:56 To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] For final review - GNSO Council letter on CCWG Accountability Third Draft Proposal Dear All, As discussed during today's meeting, please find attached the final version of the letter and accompanying table to the CCWG-Accountability, both in redline and clear version. Please review this version and if there are any issues that have been overlooked, please send those to the list by Friday 23.00 UTC at the latest. Thanks, Marika ________________________________ Edits as suggested by Phil and reordered as suggested by Keith.

Agree. OK to strike materiality dependent clause. As Keith noted in the chat, it is a good compromise (and I agree that the definition of material isn't as simple as it sounded when I first blurted out the idea). Best, Paul From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 1:41 PM To: Austin, Donna; Drazek, Keith; Marika Konings; GNSO Council List (council@gnso.icann.org) Subject: Re: [council] For final review - GNSO Council letter on CCWG Accountability Third Draft Proposal Ok, nice catch Keith and thanks for the reminder Donna. Sorry that older edit slipped through (we were drafting on the fly). And appreciate the support for posting this to the CCWG list. Will get this going shortly. Thanks again - J. From: "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz> Date: Friday, January 22, 2016 at 13:12 To: Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] For final review - GNSO Council letter on CCWG Accountability Third Draft Proposal Agree with Keith's recollection and not that it is reflected in the chat from yesterday's call: PAUL MCGRADY - IPC: (23:39) OK to strike my proposed dependent clause about materiality. Keith Drazek (RySG): (23:40) Thanks Paul. I think it's a good compromise. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith Sent: Friday, 22 January 2016 8:59 AM To: James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>; Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>; GNSO Council List (council@gnso.icann.org) <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] For final review - GNSO Council letter on CCWG Accountability Third Draft Proposal Thanks James and Marika. One comment. During yesterday's call, in the Adobe Chat, Paul agreed to withdraw his suggestion and remove the last part of the paragraph (in red below): . The GNSO Council expects that its Response, all of the GNSO SG/C public comments, and the GNSO Council and community's suggested conditions, modifications and concerns will be fully taken into account by the CCWG-Accountability. 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, and possibly the larger community, will have an adequate opportunity to review and comment on the Supplemental Proposal in a timely fashion, particularly if there are material changes to the recommendations in any Supplemental Proposal.[MK1] <> We agreed to include "and possibly the larger community" and just leave it at that. I'm not going to hold up finalizing the communication over this correction, but it should be amended to reflect the AC discussion. Otherwise, I think the letter and table accurately reflect the discussion and is ready to go. Thanks! Keith From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 11:42 AM To: Marika Konings; GNSO Council List (council@gnso.icann.org) Subject: Re: [council] For final review - GNSO Council letter on CCWG Accountability Third Draft Proposal Hi folks - Just a reminder that we are looking to transmit this to the CCWG -today-. So please give it one final review & let Marika & I know if you spot any errors or omissions. Also, if there are no objections, I propose that I could post this to the CCWG list in addition to sending it directly to the Co-Chairs. This would increase visibility and be a show of support for the GNSO participants on the CCWG. Any objections? Thanks- J. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Date: Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 16:56 To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] For final review - GNSO Council letter on CCWG Accountability Third Draft Proposal Dear All, As discussed during today's meeting, please find attached the final version of the letter and accompanying table to the CCWG-Accountability, both in redline and clear version. Please review this version and if there are any issues that have been overlooked, please send those to the list by Friday 23.00 UTC at the latest. Thanks, Marika _____ Edits as suggested by Phil and reordered as suggested by Keith.