Heather:
Thank you for the update, and let me echo Edward’s sentiments that it is very good to see the Chair and two Vice Chairs working as a team in such a cooperative
manner.
In regard to scheduling an “extraordinary meeting” to discuss the substance of the CCWG proposal, I am personally pleased to see that Council will not be requested
to make a decision next week as I am still going through the proposal and all the accompanying appendices and do not yet have very clear guidance at this point in terms of consensus views of BC members.
At this point can you give us any guidance as to the leadership team’s thinking in regard to the timing of an “extraordinary meeting” to discuss the substance
of the CCWG Proposal? I had presumed we would take that up at the Council meeting tentatively scheduled for January 14th, which is eight days prior to the target date for submitting the Proposal to the Board. I note that the public comment period
closes on December 21st and while I understand that the emphasis now is on getting Chartering organization decisions many of us want an opportunity to review the public comments.
I also note that the letter just issued by the CCWG-ACCT Co-Chairs contains this statement:
In an effort to clearly identify the level of support for the recommendations the CCWG Accountability
would request that input clearly indicate your position on each of the twelve
recommendations. Should a Chartering
Organization, in its process to approve the
proposal, identify any significant concerns that would require it to reject a specific
recommendation, the CCWG-Accountability would request that such concerns be
communicated to it as soon as possible even if the approval process in the Chartering
Organization is not yet completed. This would allow the CCWG-Accountability to begin
addressing any such concerns while advising the other Chartering Organizations of the
situation. (Emphasis added)
That makes clear that the task before the Council is not just to decide whether we endorse or object to the overall Proposal but to make subsidiary decisions,
and identify any significant concerns, in regard to each of its 12 recommendations.
In terms of setting the date for an extraordinary meeting, I also want to note at this time that I will be on vacation December 26 – January 3 and generally
unavailable to take part on any meeting during that period. In addition, I will be attending the NamesCon meeting in Las Vegas from January 9-13 and believe that other Council members will be as well; my ability to join a call during that period would depend
on its timing and whether it conflicted with a speaking/meeting obligation at the meeting.
Thanks and best regards,
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
From: gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Edward Morris
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 7:54 AM
To: gnso-ncph-leadership@icann.org; Heather Forrest
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] GNSO Leadership meeting yesterday - some comments
Hi Heather,
It's great to see everyone working together so closely in a collaborative manner. This bodes well for the coming year.
I'll defer to those more versed in the PPSAI as to whether our consideration thereof can be postponed. I strongly support the proposal to postpone consideration of the substance
of the CCWG, in particular, to a later extraordinary meeting. We in the NCSG, as I'm sure is true in the CSG, are working hard to develop a response to the third draft CCWG report. This rushed timetable, expecting a substantive response from our SG's and
Constituencies at our regularly scheduled Council meeting just 17 days from release of the draft report, and only 5 days from planned release of the translations, is not conducive to the production of a quality response. As a chartering organisation of the
CCWG we have a special responsibility to get this done right. I'm gratified that our leadership team is working to develop a plan and a timeframe, recognising the obstacles mentioned, that will allow us to do so.
Thanks, Heather, for your great work here. I should also note that it's great to see the NCPH list in use. I think it can be a valuable tool when used, as here, to coordinate,
where possible, our work on Council.
Best,
Ed Morris
From: "Heather Forrest" <Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 11:28 AM
To: "gnso-ncph-leadership@icann.org" <gnso-ncph-leadership@icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] GNSO Leadership meeting yesterday - some comments
Dear colleagues,
Last night James, Donna and I, as new GNSO Council leadership, had a meeting with ICANN staff to discuss both general matters (working methods, timelines, etc) and specific
matters (upcoming Council meeting agenda, incl CCT and CCWG-A).
The upcoming meeting agenda dominated the discussion. There is general consensus that our usual 2-hour meeting is not sufficient to cover CCT nominations, discuss CCWG-A,
and work through several motions, including PPSAI Final Report. There were several suggestions:
Your input on these are very gratefully received.
More generally, James proposed that we 3 work as a team and that all invitations extended to the Chair, where possible, go out to the 2 Vice Chairs as well. This seems
like a positive development but we'll see how it works in practice.
I hope that you find this brief report helpful and look forward to receiving your thoughts.
Best wishes,
Heather
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15
Internal Virus Database is out of date.