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

["Edward Morris" <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>]

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>
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:07 PM
To: "Johan Helsingius" <julf@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO Council List" 
<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> 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
>
>
>