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

[Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Agreed, a flat yes or no vote/response will not sufficiently capture the 
level of detail of the report and our views on them.
Best,

Volker


Am 14.01.2016 um 09:35 schrieb WUKnoben:
> All,
> at first my thanks to the team who undertook this effort of 
> evaluation. As I see there are 5 levels of support suggested:
>   * General Support
>   * General Support with qualifications
>   * General Support with (possibly divergent) Conditions
>   * Limited Support with some opposition
>   * No support
>
> Questions for understanding:
>
>   * did I put it in the right row (up – down)?
>   * would you explain the differences?
>   * 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 <mailto:kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 14, 2016 7:56 AM
> *To:* James M. Bladel <mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> ; 
> egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx> ; Johan Helsingius 
> <mailto:julf@xxxxxxxx> ; Amr Elsadr <mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> ; 
> Marika Konings <mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
> *Cc:* WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx> ; GNSO Council 
> List <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *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 
> <mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on behalf of Edward Morris 
> <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>>
> *Reply-To: *"egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>" 
> <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>>
> *Date: *Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 8:40
> *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,
>
> 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 
> <mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
> *Sent*: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 4:27 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
> 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
> >
> >
> >
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -

Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com

Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems

Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu

Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede 
Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist 
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per 
E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.

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

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best regards,

Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -

Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com

Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems

CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu

This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is 
addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this 
email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an 
addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the 
author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.