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

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

Agree.  OK to strike materiality dependent clause.  As Keith noted in the
chat, it is a good compromise (and I agree that the definition of material
isn't as simple as it sounded when I first blurted out the idea).

 

Best,

Paul

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 1:41 PM
To: Austin, Donna; Drazek, Keith; Marika Konings; GNSO Council List
(council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Subject: Re: [council] For final review - GNSO Council letter on CCWG
Accountability Third Draft Proposal

 

Ok, nice catch Keith and thanks for the reminder Donna.  Sorry that older
edit slipped through (we were drafting on the fly).

 

And appreciate the support for posting this to the CCWG list.  Will get this
going shortly.

 

Thanks again -

 

J.

 

 

From: "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, January 22, 2016 at 13:12 
To: Keith Drazek <kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [council] For final review - GNSO Council letter on CCWG
Accountability Third Draft Proposal

 

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] On
Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 11:42 AM
To: Marika Konings; GNSO Council List (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> on behalf of Marika Konings
<marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 16:56 
To: GNSO Council List <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.