RE: [council] For final review - GNSO Council letter on CCWG Accountability Third Draft Proposal

["Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Agree with Keith's recollection and not that it is reflected in the chat from 
yesterday's call:
PAUL MCGRADY - IPC: (23:39) OK to strike my proposed dependent clause about 
materiality.
Keith Drazek (RySG): (23:40) Thanks Paul. I think it's a good compromise.

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Drazek, Keith
Sent: Friday, 22 January 2016 8:59 AM
To: James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Marika Konings 
<marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>; GNSO Council List (council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [council] For final review - GNSO Council letter on CCWG 
Accountability Third Draft Proposal

Thanks James and Marika.

One comment. During yesterday's call, in the Adobe Chat, Paul agreed to 
withdraw his suggestion and remove the last part of the paragraph (in red 
below):


*         The GNSO Council expects that its Response, all of the GNSO SG/C 
public comments, and the GNSO Council and community's suggested conditions, 
modifications and concerns will be fully taken into account by the 
CCWG-Accountability. 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, and possibly the larger community, will have an adequate 
opportunity to review and comment on the Supplemental Proposal in a timely 
fashion, particularly if there are material changes to the recommendations in 
any Supplemental Proposal.[MK1]

We agreed to include "and possibly the larger community" and just leave it at 
that. I'm not going to hold up finalizing the communication over this 
correction, but it should be amended to reflect the AC discussion.

Otherwise, I think the letter and table accurately reflect the discussion and 
is ready to go.

Thanks!
Keith

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 11:42 AM
To: Marika Konings; GNSO Council List 
(council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>)
Subject: Re: [council] For final review - GNSO Council letter on CCWG 
Accountability Third Draft Proposal

Hi folks -

Just a reminder that we are looking to transmit this to the CCWG -today-.  So 
please give it one final review & let Marika & I know if you spot any errors or 
omissions.

Also, if there are no objections, I propose that I could post this to the CCWG 
list in addition to sending it directly to the Co-Chairs. This would increase 
visibility and be a show of support for the GNSO participants on the CCWG.  Any 
objections?

Thanks-

J.


From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on 
behalf of Marika Konings 
<marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 16:56
To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [council] For final review - GNSO Council letter on CCWG 
Accountability Third Draft Proposal

Dear All,

As discussed during today's meeting, please find attached the final version of 
the letter and accompanying table to the CCWG-Accountability, both in redline 
and clear version. Please review this version and if there are any issues that 
have been overlooked, please send those to the list by Friday 23.00 UTC at the 
latest.

Thanks,

Marika
________________________________

 Edits as suggested by Phil and reordered as suggested by Keith.