RE: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT

["Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Phil and Ed. The next phase of the CCWG should be to seek 
concurrence from the Chartering Organizations that concerns have been addressed 
in the supplemental report, not another full-blown public comment period.

Regards,
Keith



From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Edward Morris
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 11:31 AM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Phil Corwin
Subject: re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT

Hi Phil,

I support your proposed changes. Although I do believe that  the current CCWG 
plan is to proceed as you have proposed, let's make sure that our letter can't 
be used to suggest something else.

Thanks for picking up on this.

Best,

Ed Morris





________________________________
From: "Phil Corwin" <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 3:13 PM
To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT

Fellow Councilors:

I want to suggest a potential edit to our Council letter.

Right now it reads:
We expect that the CCWG-Accountability develop a Supplemental Proposal based on 
the input from its Chartering Organizations and the public, the GNSO Council 
expects also that it and other Chartering Organizations, as well as the larger 
community, will have an adequate opportunity to review and comment on the 
Proposal in a timely fashion.

My suggested revision would have it read as follows:
We expect that the CCWG-Accountability develop a Supplemental Proposal based on 
the input from its Chartering Organizations and the public, the GNSO Council 
expects also that it and other Chartering Organizations, reflecting the larger 
community, will have an adequate opportunity to review and comment on the 
Supplemental Proposal in a timely fashion. (changes in Bold)

As the sentence notes via its reference "and the public", we have already had a 
public comment period on the Third Proposal. The draft language could be read 
to suggest that we favor another round of public comment on the anticipated 
Supplemental Proposal, which could prevent NTIA from receiving the Proposal in 
the timely manner required (delivery by mid-to-late February) that provides a 
substantial likelihood of completing the transition in 2016.

The proposed revision emphasizes that the Chartering organizations, including 
the GNSO, are the proper entities to submit any additional comments on the 
Supplemental Proposal and can transmit the views of their constituents.

I realize that some Councilors may wish to have the Supplemental Proposal 
subject to another round of public comment. If there is a consensus for that 
position then I would suggest that any such comment period be limited in 
duration to reflect the fact that the narrow subject of such comments would be 
those changes made from the Third draft in response to the recent comment 
period.

In any event, I believe our letter should be more clear than the present draft 
regarding the Council's position in regard to whether an additional round of 
public - as opposed to Chartering Organization - comment is desired on the 
Supplemental Proposal we expect to see shortly.

Best to all,
Philip


Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey