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

["Paul McGrady \(Policy\)" <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Not just opposition to the 2/3 vote threshold, but the triggering of an
automatic requirement for the Board to vote.  We need to keep both concepts
clear and included.  Thanks!

 

Best,

Paul

 

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 12:01 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> on behalf of WUKnoben
<wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 11:51 
To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>, Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>, GNSO
Council List <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 ;
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