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

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

Thanks all. A couple of observations:


1.       The RySG and BC indicated a willingness to support the 2/3 threshold 
IF certain other terms were included, so it's not accurate to say everyone in 
the GNSO does not support 2/3 at all. We may not support the proposal as 
currently written, but that doesn't mean 2/3 won't receive some support pending 
incorporation of those recommended changes.



2.       The current definition of GAC consensus is their current operating 
procedure, but that definition IS OPEN TO CHANGE BY THE GAC at any time. 
Incorporating that definition into the bylaws is brand new, and it is the other 
half of the ST-18 package (with the 2/3 threshold).

As we discuss Recommendation 11, everyone should remember that the 2/3 
threshold (an increase of two Board votes) was a tradeoff for getting the GAC 
consensus definition incorporated  into the bylaws. The latter point is an NTIA 
requirement. If we think we can be successful in eliminating 2/3 while 
incorporating the GAC consensus definition into the bylaws, great, but there's 
a risk to the CCWG and IANA transition in doing so.

I think a question for everyone is, "Could you support the 2/3 language IF the 
additional requirements demanded by the RySG and BC are included in the next 
CCWG report?"

Regards,
Keith



From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 1:01 PM
To: WUKnoben; egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx; Phil Corwin; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT

Hi all -

Great thread on this, and Rec #11 is definitely an area of focus for our 
response, so we want to be clear.

If memory serves, our position on this Recommendation was more nuanced than 
"support" or "opposed."  Most SG/C comments noted the 2/3rds vote of the Board 
requirement to reject GAC advice as a deal-breaker.  Some SGs and Cs (BC and 
RySG, I believe) said they did support other components of Rec #11, 
specifically the definition of GAC Consensus as Lacking Formal Objection.

Stichting these together, our response would appear to be broad opposition to 
the 2/3rds vote threshold, and support/non-opposition to keep the current 
definition of GAC Consensus. In effect, the GNSO wants to preserve the status 
quo on both points.

Have I got that straight?  If so, we need to wordsmith this in to our Rec #11 
response so it is clear to the CCWG Co-Chairs.

Thanks-

J.

From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on 
behalf of WUKnoben 
<wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Reply-To: WUKnoben 
<wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 11:51
To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>>, Phil 
Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, GNSO Council List 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT

Hi Ed,

as you implicitly express the accurate wording here is important. And I, too, 
like to see and understand the statement reflecting accurately the GNSO's 
status.
Maybe it's just an issue of how I understand the word "overall" with my limited 
English. To me it means "covering or including all and everything". If this is 
the meaning then "overall" is misplaced here.
How about "broadly" or "at large".
I'm sure English natives are inventive to find something where we can all agree 
on. So calling for a vote on just this recommendation might not help us to make 
progress.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

From: Edward Morris<mailto:egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 6:15 PM
To: Phil Corwin<mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx> ; 
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ; 
WUKnoben<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT

Hi Wolf-Ulrich,



- Rec#11: There are concerns with the first statement: "The GNSO overall does 
not support this recommendation." This should be deleted.

I disagree.

I believe that statement accurately depicts the current state of play within 
the GNSO and would be of great value to the CCWG chairs. If there is a belief 
that this statement is inaccurate I would ask that a vote be taken using the 
simple majority threshold and that this statement be deleted only if it is 
shown that the GNSO does support recommendation 11.

Thanks,

Ed Morris