I suggest we clarify if that was the intent. On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com> wrote:
I read this as referring to GNSO resolutions and would have no direct impact on anything IPC chose to say. Is that correct?
Sent with Good (www.good.com)
-----Original Message----- *From: *Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent: *Monday, October 19, 2015 02:35 AM Pacific Standard Time *To: *McGrady, Paul D. *Cc: *IPC-GNSO (ipc-gnso@icann.org) *Subject: *Re: [IPC-GNSO] [IPC Discussion List] Fwd: [council] possible motion - would need to request 10 day waiver.
I certainly think so. I applaud Avri and the NCSG for taking the initiative on this effort. We can discuss today when we meet to see if there are any refinements to suggest.
Greg
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:28 AM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> wrote:
So, if we don’t think this is a problem, should we use the opportunity to play nice with the NCSG and affirmatively through our support behind it? Brian, Heather, what think ye?
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, October 19, 2015 4:11 AM *To:* McGrady, Paul D. *Cc:* IPC-GNSO (ipc-gnso@icann.org) *Subject:* [IPC Discussion List] Fwd: [council] possible motion - would need to request 10 day waiver.
I think the potentially muzzling issue is the last part of the Resolved section (in bold), but it only relates to declaring support or opposition to outcomes, not general statements, which is all CSG would do, so 8'm not concerned.
The GNSO reiterates its support for the process that is ongoing in CCWG-Accountability,
its commitment to participating in continuing discussions with the goal of finding solution with broad agreement for ICANN accountabity in preparations for IANA transition, and
to *working through the process as agreed upon in the charter before making any resolutions declaring support or opposition to possible outcomes.*
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 9:25 AM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> wrote:
All, please see below for last minute motion by the NCSG. A few questions:
1. Does anyone read this as a muzzling of individual constituencies/SGs? I know that such was the fear but it isn't obvious to me that such is the case; 2. Assuming "no" to the above question, are there any other concerns with this resolution? 3. Assuming "yes" to the above question, should Heather or Brian reach out to Avri to get clarification that this isn't meant to interfere with speech from the constituencies/SG?
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 6:11 PM To: <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] possible motion - would need to request 10 day waiver.
To my fellow council members,
I would like to offer one last motion before I end my tenure on the GNSO council.
I know I have missed the motion deadline and therefore request consideration for waiver of the 10 day rule for motions, noting that this request is submitted at least 24 hours before the meeting scheduled for 21 October 2015.
I also note that I am available to consider any friendly amendments that might be required for acceptance of the resolution that might come based on Stakeholder Group and Constituency consideration of this motion.
--- Motion
Whereas
On 13 November 2014 the GNSO approved the charter for a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountabilty);
On 3 August the Public Comment on the CCWG-Accountability 2nd Draft Proposal was initiated, which ended on 12 Septemebr 2015;
The CCWG-Accountabilty has analyzed the comments received in the review of the 2nd draft and is working toward updating its reference implementation taking into account the concerns expressed in those comments;
and The CCWG-Accountabilty is working in a considered and collegial manner to achieve a consensus solution to ICANN Accountability;
Acknowledging
the superb and continuing leadership of CCWG-Accountabilty by the team which includes the GNSO appointed co-chair Thomas Rickert, to whom we are grateful for his time and consistent effort;
Resolved
The GNSO reiterates its support for the process that is ongoing in CCWG-Accountability,
its commitment to participating in continuing discussions with the goal of finding solution with broad agreement for ICANN accountabity in preparations for IANA transition, and
to working through the process as agreed upon in the charter before making any resolutions declaring support or opposition to possible outcomes.
---
thanks,
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ IPC-GNSO mailing list IPC-GNSO@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ipc-gnso
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.