RE: [council] RE: Action items from GNSO Council call on 17 January regarding the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal

["Edward Morris" <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi everybody,

 I'd suggest we allow James to develop the letter as he proposed to do on the 
call yesterday.

 I think Wolf-Ulrich captures the essence of what James will be doing but in 
that he will be basing it upon the SG/C comments he does capture part of Paul's 
concern. I disagree with Paul, though, if he means every comment made by every 
GNSO C/SG should be included in the letter. If we were to do so the letter 
would become a book and useless for the CCWG. Synthesis does require some 
editorial judgement. There were many NCSG/NPOC/NCUC comments that were not 
captured during the sub-team's work. If the IPC is to insist all of their 
comments be captured I would be forced to insist all NCSG/NPOC/NCUC comments be 
captured in the letter as well. I don't want to do that.

 Let's give James a shot at developing a letter we can all support. It may 
prove to be an impossible task but he certainly has my full faith and 
confidence as he tries to do so.

 Best,

 Ed




----------------------------------------
 From: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 11:54 AM
To: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Mary Wong" 
<mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [council] RE: Action items from GNSO Council call on 17 January 
regarding the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal

Hi Wolf-Ulrich,



I thought quite the opposite coming out of the call that there was broad 
agreement that the comments are the important part of our feedback and should 
be included in James' letter.  You raise a much broader issue than just whether 
or not the IPC will be edited out of the Council's comments on Recommendation 9 
when everyone else was included (James, can I have a decision on this sooner 
rather than later?  If the IPC is to be excluded, I need to figure out how to 
explain the Council's decision to include some voices but not others.  Note, 
I'm not asking for anything special here, just that what we submit include 
content from the IPC which was included in our public comment but excluded by 
whomever had that section in the subteam - in other words, a drafting error, 
the correction of which was supposed to be the subject of yesterday's call).



All, regarding Wolf-Ulrich's more general position, did anyone else on the call 
come away with the idea that the various positions of the C's and SG's would 
not be included in James' letter?  I left the call with a 180 degree different 
take away after having several verbal and chat affirmations from several folks 
(including James) that the comments would make their way into the letter and 
the letter would not just be category descriptions (Broad, Limited, None, etc.) 
which would not be help to the CCWG as a feedback mechanism.  If we aren't 
sticking to what we agreed to on the call yesterday, I need to know that as 
soon as possible too, but really hope we didn't through 2 hours out the window.



Best to all,

Paul







From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 1:33 AM
To: McGrady, Paul D.; Mary Wong; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] RE: Action items from GNSO Council call on 17 January 
regarding the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal



My understanding is the council in providing its answer to the CCWG shouldn't 
be repetitive and not just list and combine the SG/C comments made during the 
public comment period. We all know that compromises are needed in order to make 
progress towards an acceptable text. In this respect our constituency refrains 
to go into more details with the exception of rec. 11.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich



From: McGrady, Paul D.

Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 5:24 PM

To: Mary Wong ;  council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Subject: [council] RE: Action items from GNSO Council call on 17 January 
regarding the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal



Thanks Mary.



Hopefully, we didn't miss our window to be heard.  We thought the purpose of 
today's call was to make sure the Subgroup captured all the comments and not 
that there was a pre-call deadline to review and suggest edits in the 48 hours 
or so given between draft and call.  I also hope that other c's and SG's aren't 
making saliency decisions for each others' comments.   In the sections I 
drafted, I tried to be as inclusive as possible, even if I didn't share the 
concern.  I hope that was the right approach.



Best,

Paul







From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 9:18 AM
To: McGrady, Paul D.; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Action items from GNSO Council call on 17 January regarding the 
CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal



Hi Paul and everyone,



The staff understanding was that what was, and is to be, included in the final 
document that lays out the Council's response will basically be those SG/C 
comments that are considered to be most salient to the specific point being 
made (e.g. a GNSO condition). We therefore assumed that any additions of 
specific SG/C comments at this point would first go through a review process 
with James and possibly the Sub Team (as they were the ones that compiled the 
extract of SG/C comments). Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that none of 
these is either a staff position or view on what ought or ought not to be 
included or added to the document!



Thanks and cheers

Mary





Mary Wong

Senior Policy Director

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx

Telephone: +1-603-5744889





From: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 22:20
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Action items from GNSO Council call on 17 January regarding the 
CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal



Thanks Mary.  Just a quick question on Rec 9.  Why would there need to be a 
review of whether or not to include the IPC comments?  Everyone else's comments 
were included, so I don't know why the IPCs would be subject to a review to see 
if they would be included.  Thanks for your thoughts.



Best,

Paul







From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 8:17 AM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] Action items from GNSO Council call on 17 January regarding 
the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal



Dear all,



Here are the notes that staff took in relation to action items stemming from 
the Special GNSO Council meeting that just concluded. Please let us know if we 
have missed or mischaracterized anything.



ACTION ITEMS:
        Letter explaining GNSO Council response - James to prepare draft for 
Council consideration before 21 January, assisted by Keith and Ed  Rec 5, 11 - 
James to draft additional language along the lines of what was discussed/agreed 
on the call, assisted by Ed and Paul        Rec 1 - reinsert BC note about 
strong right of inspection (perhaps with cross-reference in/to Rec 3?)   Rec 2 
- change "unanimous support" to "broad support"   Rec 3, 4 - no change    Rec 6 
- remove last sentence; add note that certain questions remain to be resolved 
in WS2      Rec 7 - no change       Rec 8 - further elaboration needed on note 
about timeliness (including replies and deadlines)   Rec 9 - Review whether IPC 
comment on AOC section 8(b) and direct constituency participation in review 
teams should be included; review generally for accuracy  Rec 10 - emphasize 
need for it to be a community-led effort     Rec 12 - no change

Staff will follow up with James and the various Council volunteers to ensure 
that you have the updates as soon as practicable.



Thanks and cheers

Mary





Mary Wong

Senior Policy Director

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx

Telephone: +1-603-5744889



The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if 
this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. 
Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. 
Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.

The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if 
this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. 
Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. 
Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.

The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if 
this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. 
Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. 
Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.