FW: [council] CCWG-Accountability timeline

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Forwarding on behalf of Ed Morris as his email has not made it to the Council 
list yet (we are looking into what may be the issue).

________________________________
From: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Monday, November 2, 2015 11:45 AM
To: "David Cake" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: re: [council] CCWG-Accountability timeline

Hi David,

Thanks for this and thanks again to yourself and Volker for containing to take 
on leadership responsibilities during our time of transition.

I suspect that each constituent SG within the GNSO, indeed down to the 
Constituency level where they exist, will have a different take on the 3rd 
draft proposal. Although I certainly believe that there would and should be 
general support for what I anticipate will be the proposal, each SG is likely 
to have different "red lines" and areas of disagreement with the draft.

I'd suggest that our role as Council should be more as an aggregator attempting 
to determine where there is consensus amongst the SG's on certain specifics of 
the 3rd draft and where we might have areas of divergence within the GNSO. I 
believe the former would be of greatest use to the CCWG. I would expect our 
constituent parts would elaborate in detail on their concerns with the 
proposal, and support thereof,  in their own public comments. Where we as a 
Council and as a chartering SO could provide value is in letting the CCWG know 
where we are unified as an SO both in support of and in opposition to 
particulars of the draft.

As you noted, time is short. I'd suggest that the first step necessarily would 
be for us to go back to our "homes" within the GNSO once the draft is released  
to get feedback on the proposal that we can then bring to whatever aggregating 
mechanism we chose to set up. Certainly we'd need to have this input no laster 
than 3 December, giving us at Council level 2 weeks prior to our call on 17 
December to put something together for consideration and endorsement by the 
entire Council on the call. I haven't encountered anything quite like this 
during my brief tenure on Council but I assume forming some sort of team to 
draft the GNSO response might be appropriate.

Best,

Ed Morris





________________________________
From: "David Cake" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Monday, November 2, 2015 10:46 AM
To: "<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [council] CCWG-Accountability timeline

The timeline for SOAC endorsement (obviously including GNSO) of the 
CCWG-Accountability proposal is quite short. The final report is due 15 Nov, 
and we need to have comments in by Dec 21. Of course comments by individuals, 
and SGs and constituencies are possible, but the co-chairs have indicated that 
commentary as a chartering organisation will be most valuable to them at this 
point, so we should plan to provide that. Given the relatively short time frame 
for producing GNSO consensus comments, we may wish to start discussion, at 
least of our process, prior to the delivery of the report in two weeks.

One suggestion would be for the GNSO appointed members of the CCWG, perhaps 
including observers if appropriate, to outline at least issues they think are 
significant to the GNSO?


David