Re: [council] possible motion - would need to request 10 day waiver.
After reading Avri's proposal with more diligence and discussing it with Anne from IPC, I understand it being intended to avoid any GNSO (council) resolutions on the matter. That to my knowledge means the GNSO as a whole, not single SGs or Cs. In addition, I understand now that the motion makes sense only if the last para stays (maybe in a modified version): “... to working through the process as agreed upon in the charter before making any resolutions declaring support or opposition to possible outcomes. ...” The IPC’s concern is related to the duration of the process and they’re looking to impose a deadline like “...as long as the CCWG meetings in Dublin continue.” Further discussion is needed Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Avri Doria Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 1:08 AM 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
We need to discuss this in tomorrow's meeting Tony Sent from my iPad
On 19 Oct 2015, at 13:55, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
After reading Avri's proposal with more diligence and discussing it with Anne from IPC, I understand it being intended to avoid any GNSO (council) resolutions on the matter. That to my knowledge means the GNSO as a whole, not single SGs or Cs.
In addition, I understand now that the motion makes sense only if the last para stays (maybe in a modified version):
“... to working through the process as agreed upon in the charter before making any resolutions declaring support or opposition to possible outcomes. ...”
The IPC’s concern is related to the duration of the process and they’re looking to impose a deadline like “...as long as the CCWG meetings in Dublin continue.”
Further discussion is needed
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Avri Doria Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 1:08 AM 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
participants (2)
-
Tony Holmes -
WUKnoben