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

["WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,
at first my thanks to the team who undertook this effort of evaluation. As I 
see there are 5 levels of support suggested:
  a.. General Support 
  b.. General Support with qualifications 
  c.. General Support with (possibly divergent) Conditions 
  d.. Limited Support with some opposition 
  e.. No support
Questions for understanding:
  a.. did I put it in the right row (up – down)? 
  b.. would you explain the differences? 
  c.. what does “general support” mean? It looks like a restriction/limitation 
if it doesn’t mean “full support”. Why not just saying “support”?
I’m inclined to join Keith’s concerns re the rating for rec #11.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich



From: Drazek, Keith 
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 7:56 AM
To: James M. Bladel ; egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx ; Johan Helsingius ; Amr Elsadr ; 
Marika Konings 
Cc: WUKnoben ; GNSO Council List 
Subject: RE: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability 
Third Draft Report

James, thanks for this clear and concise explanation. I agree with your 
assessment on process.

 

I would like to raise a question about the “No Support” for Recommendation 11 
in our draft communication. I understand there is opposition to the 2/3 
threshold increase, but Recommendation 11 is broader than that…it also 
incorporates the threshold definition of GAC consensus advice (no formal 
opposition) into the bylaws, which is something very positive for all of us in 
the GNSO. Do we really want to signal “no support” for the entire 
recommendation, or should we perhaps make it “limited support with some 
opposition?”  I’m a bit concerned that we’d be sending an inaccurate signal to 
the CCWG if it was left as simply “no support.”  

 

For the record, the RySG understands that Recommendation 11 is a package and we 
suggested new provisions if the 2/3 language were to remain. We would be happy 
to see the 2/3 threshold reversed, but we did not signal “no support” on Rec-11 
in our written comments to the CCWG.

 

Happy to discuss further on the upcoming Council call.

 

Regards,

Keith

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:54 PM
To: egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx; Johan Helsingius; Amr Elsadr; Marika Konings
Cc: WUKnoben; GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability 
Third Draft Report

 

Colleagues:

 

The discussion around this has been extremely valuable, and big thanks for all 
of those who weighed in.  I apologize for taking so long to weigh in, but I was 
watching some of the keynote speeches here at NamesCon (include Paul’s.  Nice 
job!).  In any event, my thoughts are below.

 

 

What is the purpose of tomorrow’s call?

The GNSO Council will send its unified position on the CCWG-Accountability 
recommendations to the co-chairs of the CCWG.  We will achieve this by 
reviewing, discussing and approving the Consolidated document that was prepared 
by the SubTeam.

 

Should we do this now, or wait for the final CCWG Recommendations?

It seems increasingly likely that there will be a new set of modified CCWG 
Recommendations in the near future.  However, if we want to help shape the next 
report to ensure it reflects the views of the GNSO Community, we need to 
comment on this set of Recommendations now.  Doing so will also provide 
guidance & support to the GNSO members of the CCWG-ACCT in their work to drive 
the best outcomes.

 

Are we voting, or drafting a letter, or what?

This is an open question for tomorrow’s call.  Some have indicated a preference 
for a less formal (letter) response, similar to what we’ve seen from the ccNSO. 
 Others have noted that something this important would benefit from an itemized 
expression of support/non-support.  The CCWG co-chairs, and the CCWG charter, 
appear to favor the latter, and certainly a formal vote will be required for 
the Final Recommendations.  My hope is that we are able to resolve this 
tomorrow, but if necessary we can vote on whether or not we need to vote (!).

 

If we do vote, then what is the vote about? What are we voting on? How will 
this go down?

If we proceed with a vote, then the Councilors will be asked whether or not 
they agree with the Subteam’s analysis & consolidation of the public comments 
filed by the SGs and CS.  In other words, we will be voting on the  —language— 
of the response, NOT the response itself.  Example:  If the Subteam reports 
that the GNSO opposes a recommendation, a “Yes” vote will agree with that 
statement of GNSO opposition, not the recommendation itself.  Hopefully this 
will become clearer tomorrow as we walk through the document.

 

What if we can’t agree?

If we cannot reach consensus (either via discussion or voting) on the GNSO 
response to any recommendation, then we will refer the CCWG Co-Chairs back to 
the individual comments filed by the SGs and Cs.  I believe there are a few 
(2-3) areas in the report where this may be the case.  But generally speaking, 
the Subteam found a great deal of overlap in SG/C positions, and when those 
comments included qualifiers or conditions, those were usually not in conflict. 

 

 

 

From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Edward Morris 
<egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: "egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx" <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 8:40 
To: Johan Helsingius <julf@xxxxxxxx>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Marika 
Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
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 Marika,

 

I'm very appreciative of your efforts to make us aware of the approach the 
CCNSO took. We need all the input we can get. Now if you could do the same for 
the GAC I think we all would be double appreciative! (we're still waiting for 
some smoke signals from our government colleagues).

 

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I definitely think we should be taking an up and 
down vote on each of the recommendations. I referenced the sub-teams work only 
to suggest that format - response by recommendation - be used going forward. 
Thanks for letting me know that I wasn't clear and giving me the chance to 
clear up any misunderstanding.

 

Ed

 

 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 4:27 PM
To: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>, "Johan Helsingius" <julf@xxxxxxxx>, 
"Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
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 

 

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> on behalf of Edward Morris 
<egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday 13 January 2016 at 17:16
To: Johan Helsingius <julf@xxxxxxxx>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Marika 
Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
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 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>
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 3:39 PM
To: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>, "Johan Helsingius" <julf@xxxxxxxx>, 
"Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
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 

 

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> on behalf of Edward Morris 
<egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday 13 January 2016 at 15:42
To: Johan Helsingius <julf@xxxxxxxx>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
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,

 

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
>
>
>