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

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Ed. I didn’t mean to imply that the ccNSO response was the way to go, I 
thought it just might be of interest to see how other chartering organisations 
in addition to the ALAC approached it.

As a point of clarification, are you suggesting that an up / down vote would be 
taken on the response provided by the sub-team, not necessarily the 
recommendations themselves? I thought you were suggesting the latter in your 
initial email, but your last paragraph in this section makes me think you are 
suggesting the former?

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 17:16
To: Johan Helsingius <julf@xxxxxxxx<mailto:julf@xxxxxxxx>>, Amr Elsadr 
<aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, Marika Konings 
<marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
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 Marika,

Thanks for this. That certainly is an approach we could take but I question 
it's overall utility to those of us in the CCWG who are attempting to put 
together a proposal all of the chartering organisations can support.

I would refer everyone to the CCWG Charter ( ), specifically:

---

SO and AC support for the Draft Proposal(s)
Following submission of the Draft Proposal(s), each of the chartering 
organizations shall, in accordance with their own rules and procedures, review 
and discuss the Draft Proposal(s) and decide whether to adopt the 
recommendations contained in it. The chairs of the chartering organizations 
shall notify the co-chairs of the WG of the result of the deliberations as soon 
as feasible.

Supplemental Draft Proposal
In the event that one or more of the participating SO’s or AC’s do(es) not 
adopt one or more of the recommendation(s) contained in the Draft Proposal(s), 
the Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability shall be notified accordingly. This 
notification shall include at a minimum the reasons for the lack of support and 
a suggested alternative that would be acceptable, if any. The 
CCWG-Accountability may, at its discretion, reconsider, post for public 
comments and/or submit to the chartering organizations a Supplemental Draft 
Proposal, which takes into accounting the concerns raised.

Following submission of the Supplemental Draft Proposal, the chartering 
organizations shall discuss and decide in accordance with its own rules and 
procedures whether to adopt the recommendations contained in the Supplemental 
Draft Proposal. The Chairs of the chartering organizations shall notify the 
Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability of the result of the deliberations as soon 
as feasible.


---

With the exception of its referral to the CWG requirements, I don't find the 
CCNSO response to be particularly helpful. Provisional support of the 
"direction of travel" doesn't tell the CCWG if we need to change some specifics 
of any of our recommendations. If the CCNSO is prepared to support all the 
recommendations save those related to the CWG they should say so. What we're 
trying to avoid is a situation where only on the final vote of approval / 
disapproval do we become aware of a Chartering organisations problems with a 
specific recommendation. As I understand things, that actually is the purpose 
of the special attention being paid to the Chartering organisations in this 
round of public comments. Although there are some tweaks that probably should 
be made,  I do largely support the work of the Council sub-team and the result 
of their efforts and hope that is the basis of our discussion and response.

Best,

Ed






________________________________
From: "Marika Konings" 
<marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 3:39 PM
To: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>>, "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

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
>
>
>