<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] FW: GNSO review of Third Draft Proposal
- To: "egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx" <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] FW: GNSO review of Third Draft Proposal
- From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2015 15:17:50 +0000
- Accept-language: en-US
- Authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx;
- Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=secureservernet.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-godaddy-com; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=OSZ6arupq7RKVZQhIbCA+qN4RbheDFe7Ks7TCgQzKOE=; b=5ENyItk+MdF2D8pmNnq1nluJA5z5R1jo20ijJY85h0ma66w95zOzx9ISy9jTQVgksqqr8oQYZN+iSsuW+uK66RAon6rJKj/1jJ2OR/zJWrDA3OfuSXUQSbLESbeoE+ZUKCbbaoVJM2PVKdybXEH/Sa+/6Sr2b7MQdHgGkiMvJ8Y=
- In-reply-to: <11444afeb57f4dfe8148dc0d53da7084@toast.net>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <D2A17E90.5772F%marika.konings@icann.org> <D2A17FE7.57739%marika.konings@icann.org>,<36C52A14-634D-4631-95B7-6EF86B44476A@toast.net> <58C063DD-AF48-4B41-8692-CD4C65C7F830@godaddy.com>,<11444afeb57f4dfe8148dc0d53da7084@toast.net>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
- Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
- Thread-index: AQHRPmvxdMBvUWiAGEqNysazLcOsCp7afQKAgAAyG4CAAAkqcoACZA+AgABH/AI=
- Thread-topic: [council] FW: GNSO review of Third Draft Proposal
Ed:
Again, sorry for the mix up. Thanks for collecting these links and we'll get
this fixed ASAP.
Thank you,
J.
____________
James Bladel
GoDaddy
On Dec 26, 2015, at 05:00, Edward Morris
<egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hi James,
Thanks for this.
I did receive an e-mail from one of our hard working colleagues asking if the
NCSG opinion was not, in fact, merely a composite of the NPOC and NCUC
opinions. Actually, the answer to that is 'no'. The noncommercial space is a
bit different than the others to work in. Although most of our NCSG members
belong to the NPOOC, the NCUC or both, similar in some ways to the CSG, we do
have members who belong to neither constituency and instead are members of the
NCSG only, similar to members in the CPH SGs. In addition, the leadership of
the NCSG, NPOC and NCUC are generally different and as with our Councillors,
who are not normally bound on their votes, leaders of these groups generally
have freedom of conscience in their actions. For example, in it's CCWG comments
the NPOC approved of all twelve recommendations, the NCSG did not approve of
four, yet Sam Lanfranco, who is both the Chair of the NPOC policy committee
and an appointee to the NCSG PC, joined in declaring consensus approving the
NCSG comment.
Each NCSG Councillor is elected at the SG level and is charged with
representing on Council all members be they NPOC, NCUC or unitary NCSG members.
In doing so, we obviously consult with the members themselves and the elected
leadership of all three groups. I hope this better explains why certain
structural issues that have arisen recently might be a bit more salient for us
in the NCSG than for Councillors from groups with a more unitary remit.
If you could re-submit your message with the noncommercial links as follows it
would be much appreciated:
Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG)
Survey Response -
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/msg00076.html
Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC), Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group
Comment -
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/msg00069.html
Non-Profit Organizations Constituency (NPOC), Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group
Survey Response -
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/msg00051.html
Thanks James. Here's hoping that Santa was good to you and your family and that
everyone on Council, s well as our fine staff, is having a wonderful and
peaceful holiday season.
Kind Regards,
Ed Morris
________________________________
From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2015 10:34 PM
To: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "Marika Konings"
<marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>, "GNSO Council
List" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [council] FW: GNSO review of Third Draft Proposal
Hi Ed.
Sorry for the error. If you can send the links as you'd like them to appear, we
will send a correction.
J.
Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri.
On Dec 24, 2015, at 16:01, Edward Morris
<egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hi James,
Thanks for all of your hard work on this.
There is a mistake in the links section of your letter to the CCWG Chairs. The
Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) and the Non-Commercial Users
Constituency (NCUC) submitted separate public comments. They are both
attributed, below, to the NCUC. The NCSG statement was drafted with
participation of members of both the NCUC and NPOC and was endorsed by the
policy committee of the NCSG, which consists of representatives of both
constituencies. The NCUC and NPOC statements were drafted by and endorsed by
the appropriate committees of each constituency.
Although similar in content (as are to each other the three statements
submitted by members of the Commercial Stakeholders Group) there are
differences between the three noncommercial comments that should be
acknowledged and properly respected as we begin the process of consolidation. I
realize that it is rare for the three non-commercial entities to all submit
comments on a topic yet when there are differences in approach, such as here,
it does happen.
I would respectfully request that your letter be corrected and re-sent. I
certainly don't want the Chairs or one of us to skip over a full set of
comments on the mistaken belief that the NCUC sent the same set of comments to
the list in different forms when, in fact, that is not the case. One of the
comments attributed to the NCUC is actually a submission by the NCSG.
Thanks,
Ed Morris
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 24, 2015, at 5:03 PM, Marika Konings
<marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
For your information.
Best regards,
Marika
From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thursday 24 December 2015 at 10:55
To: Le?n Felipe S?nchez Amb?a
<leonfelipe@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:leonfelipe@xxxxxxxxxx>>, Mathieu Weill
<mathieu.weill@xxxxxxxx<mailto:mathieu.weill@xxxxxxxx>>, Thomas Rickert
<thomas@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:thomas@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:grace.abuhamad@xxxxxxxxx>>,
Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:alice.jansen@xxxxxxxxx>>, "James M.
Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: GNSO review of Third Draft Proposal
Sending on behalf of James Bladel, GNSO Chair:
CCWG-ACCT Co-Chairs
Re: GNSO Review of Third Draft Proposal
24 DEC 2015
Dear Mathieu, Thomas, and Leon:
Earlier this week, 21 Dec 2015, marked the close of the Public Comment period
covering the Third CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal. Unfortunately, due to
the size and diversity of the organizations that comprise the GNSO, and the
compressed time frame, we were unable to develop a unified GNSO response to the
12 Recommendations of the CCWG-Accountability by the close of the comment
period.
Listed below are links to comments and survey responses submitted on behalf of
GNSO Stakeholder Groups (SGs) and Constituencies (Cs). Additional submissions
were made on behalf of individuals and organizations that participate in the
GNSO from within one or more SG/C. We have formed a team tasked with analyzing
these responses, and using them to draft a harmonized position for
consideration by the GNSO Council in a special session convening on 14 January
2016 Presuming this position is successfully adopted, it will be transmitted to
you immediately following this session.
Once again, please accept our gratitude for dedication and patience in
shepherding this enormous and historic work unit over the past year. We are
very near the finish line, and look forward to further contributing our
thoughts to this document, and the Final CCWG-Accountability Proposal.
Thank you,
James Bladel
GNSO Chair
Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG):
Comment -
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/msg00035.html
Survey Response -
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/msg00034.html
Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG)
Comment -
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/msg00084.html
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency (IPC), Commercial Stakeholder Group
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/msg00100.html
Internet Service Providers Constituency (ISPC), Commercial Stakeholder Group
Survey Response -
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/msg00046.html
Commercial and Business Users Constituency (BC), Commercial Stakeholder Group
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/msg00064.html
Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC), Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group
Comment -
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/msg00069.html
Survey Response -
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/msg00076.html
Non-Profit Organizations Constituency (NPOC), Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group
Survey Response -
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/msg00051.html
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|