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

[Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Paul,

I think your language leaves something to be desired. Even if one or two 
points you want to raise were not to be reflected in the letter, this 
would hardly be "censorship". A position of the GNSO should first and 
foremost reflect the positions we can all agree on. If just one or two 
SGs have a certain view, that is their view (to be addressed in their 
individual comments) but not a view held by the GNSO as a whole. If 
included at all, it would be under the label of "The GNSO was unable to 
come to a unified consensus position on the following issues:" and I do 
not think that would help our case.
Let's all take a breath of fresh air and work constructively on 
achieving a positive result that reflects the overall consensus of the 
council and the GNSO.
Best,

Volker


Am 15.01.2016 um 14:25 schrieb McGrady, Paul D.:
> 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 
> <mailto:PMcGrady@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
> *Sent*: Friday, January 15, 2016 11:54 AM
> *To*: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, "Mary Wong" 
> <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
> "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" 
> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 
> <mailto: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. <mailto:PMcGrady@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> *Sent:*Thursday, January 14, 2016 5:24 PM
>
> *To:*Mary Wong <mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> ; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto: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 
> <mailto: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 <mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Telephone: +1-603-5744889
>
> *From: *"McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:PMcGrady@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
> *Date: *Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 22:20
> *To: *Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
> "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" 
> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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> 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Mary Wong
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 14, 2016 8:17 AM
> *To:* council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 <mailto: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. 
--
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.