ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: Johan Helsingius <julf@xxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report
  • From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:58:08 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx;
  • 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=OWlChEYr3Tw7nVtvGZBhd2CexbDiPYJJFcKGfTkX2nA=; b=AN0CxG2CwHk5KcHE6mdqM6Jqjh5XeC75IJMVm1bIhfC7L7UxSe+JnAHkdNwP9rA2TW7SKg/pG1AD8NdNcmzM7MBi32lceYWJrdqE/oyCSj7RHruCxLOgKZTEGSV4r+GBX5MsQvgK+DDvIkXxAMfvOpkcUMDtK/mEDYVTrcsii4w=
  • In-reply-to: <5693B548.8040008@julf.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <EB53F723569A4E088BC175075E628C4D@WUKPC> <5693B548.8040008@julf.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
  • Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
  • Thread-index: AQHRTEuCSVTmBwTNl0a6wgd3cIzfGJ72WAUA//+8dIA=
  • Thread-topic: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report
Hi Julf -

This has also been a point of discussion, and hope to have a full
discussion on Thursday.  Generally, I believe we will vote on each CCWG
recommendation, either voice vote (if not objections) or roll call vote.

On each issue, the Council will consider the question of whether or not
the harmonized statement reflects the consolidated position of the GNSO,
including any conditions or unmet concerns expressed in SG/C comments.  It
will be a yes(Support) or no(Object) vote, with any abstentions having the
effect of ³Support².

One point on which we have been consistent is that the GNSO response is
limited to only the CCWG Third Draft, and is not responding to comments
filed by the Board or other groups.  This is essential to allow the CCWG
to proceed on any next (final?) draft and its work on WS2.

Hope this is helpful!

Thanks‹

J.


On 1/11/16, 5:59 , "owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Johan
Helsingius" <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of julf@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>
>Everybody,
>
>I am curious as how we intend to determine the outcome on Thursday.
>Do we intend to do a separate voting point on each item in the draft?
>How do we reach a trinary result (general support / limited support /
>no support) using simple majority?
>
>Personally I am not too happy with those 3 alternatives. To me, the
>real alternatives (for each point) are something like:
>
> - "No issues"
> - "Not happy with the current wording, but can live with it if it
>    is a show-stopper for the IANA transition"
> - "Should be refined as part of work stream 2"
> - "No go. Show stopper."
>
>And for those points where the board has expressed reservations, I
>guess one more alternative is "Can live with current wording, but
>any major back pedalling will be a show stopper and needs another
>comment round".
>
>What would be really helpful would be some indication of what
>the real show stopper points are from the point of view of
>the IANA transition - to me it seems many of the points in the
>current draft could (and probably should) really be in work
>stream 2.
>
>       Julf
>
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>