Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

You may also be interested to see the approach the ccNSO Council took in their 
comments on the third draft proposal: 
http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-draft-3-proposal-07jan16-en.pdf.

Best regards,

Marika

From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on 
behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>>
Reply-To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday 13 January 2016 at 15:42
To: Johan Helsingius <julf@xxxxxxxx<mailto:julf@xxxxxxxx>>, Amr Elsadr 
<aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: WUKnoben 
<wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, GNSO 
Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability 
Third Draft Report

Hi,

Other chartering organisations (see, for example, ALAC:  
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/pdfeO5FTDW5b5.pdf
 ) have given clear indications of approval / disapproval of each of the twelve 
recommendations, along with reasoning thereof. I'd suggest we do the same. I'm 
ambivalent as to whether we indicate our preferences in the form of a Motion or 
a letter from our Chair,  but I do believe the CCWG needs the simplified 
guidance that only a straight up / down decision on each recommendation can 
give.

Ed



________________________________
From: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:07 PM
To: "Johan Helsingius" <julf@xxxxxxxx<mailto:julf@xxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "WUKnoben" 
<wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, "GNSO 
Council List" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability 
Third Draft Report


Hi,

I agree that a formal vote is not absolutely needed at this stage, but I wonder 
whether or not a formal vote of the 3rd draft recommendations would be helpful 
to the CCWG. I imagine that it will draw a very clear picture of where the 
stakeholder groups/constituencies of one of the CCWG's chartering organisations 
stand on each of the recommendations.

Although these positions have probably been communicated by the appointed 
members from the GNSO groups, my guess would be that the members of the CCWG 
may still find a Council vote helpful.

Just a thought.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Jan 13, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Johan Helsingius 
> <julf@xxxxxxxx<mailto:julf@xxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
>
> Wolf-Ulrich,
>
>> Maybe tomorrow we could sort out and discuss the very last not yet
>> agreeable recs. The formal vote could then be taken at a later stage - maybe
>> even at the council meeting next week.
>
> I am not entirely sure why a formal vote is needed now, assuming
> there will have to be one more, final(?) draft - surely what counts
> is the vote on the *final* version. Or am I wrong in my assumptions?
>
> Julf
>
>
>