<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] RE: Action items from GNSO Council call on 17 January regarding the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal
Hi Paul,
I'm a bit confused. Is there another Paul McGrady or are you the same Paul
McGrady who served on the CCWG sub-team with me and, frankly, had more input,
as I did, to the sub-group submission than did the average Councillor? :)
If you want to use hyperbolic terms like "censorship" I'll oblige: The
NCSG/NCUC concerns on the role of the GAC were "censored" out of or comments on
recommendation 1, the NPOC specific concerns on inspection were "censored" out
of multiple recommendations, the NCSG call for more transparency in WS2 were
"censored" out of WS 12. Man, we have a lot of "censorship" here. I can
probably give you another 50 or 60 versions of "censorship" of NPOC/NCSG/NCUC
views in this document.
Of course, there is no "censorship" going on here. I'd prefer to avoid
hyperbole and work cooperatively to develop a unified GNSO position on as many
matters as we can. It won't be possible in every instance or on every
recommendation or on any point and it won't be perfect and not every point by
every group some of which diverge) will be captured. We do the best we can. I
look forward to viewing James effort at doing so and look forward to working
cooperatively with my fellow Councillors to constructing a response worthy of
all of the fine groups that compose the GNSO.
Best,
Ed
----------------------------------------
From: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 1:25 PM
To: "egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx" <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>, "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
Thanks Ed. I guess we will just have to wait and see if the IPC position is
censored out of Recommendation 9 or not. If it is, I suppose that the IPC will
just have to find other avenues to make sure that the CCWG hears its voice.
However, the IPC would prefer that the Council give the IPC the same status as
other C's and SG's whose positions were allowed to be captured in the comments
to Recommendation 9.
Best,
Paul
From: Edward Morris [mailto:egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 7:18 AM
To: WUKnoben; Mary Wong; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; McGrady, Paul D.
Subject: RE: [council] RE: Action items from GNSO Council call on 17 January
regarding the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal
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.
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.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|