Re: [council] RE: CCWG - Timeline for Approval by GNSO

["WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

My suggestion – as shared within our constituency - is that we should choose 
not just one of the three options provided by James but an appropriate mix of 
them. This would provide the SGs/Cs the opportunity approach the final output 
stepwise, with the council facilitating the GNSO internal process.
I feel also concerned that we may get under huge pressure if we wait for the 
very last moment to approach the decision. I’m open to any other dates for a 
council call which suit better to our various needs.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich



From: Phil Corwin 
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 7:48 PM
To: egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx ; James M. Bladel ; GNSO Council List 
Subject: RE: [council] RE: CCWG - Timeline for Approval by GNSO

Ed:

 

While always respectful of your views, I remain concerned that delaying 
initiation of our consideration of the Final Proposal until Marrakech will 
crowd out most other issues on our agenda and still result in rushed and less 
than fully comprehensive consideration. I would certainly support a Doodle poll 
to identify other pre-departure for Marrakech dates that might work for Council 
members.

 

So far as my “momentum” remark, what I was trying to articulate was a view that 
the Council, which has understandably lagged behind the other Chartering 
Organizations due to the size and diversity of its membership, should try to 
catch up and even get a bit ahead in this final stage of the WS 1 approval 
process – whether that is to approve the recommendations package or identify 
one or more that raise continuing concerns. 

 

In any event, I remain of the view that we should try to get a head start on 
final decisions to be made in Marrakech by holding at least one pre-Marrakech 
discussion.

 

Best, 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

 

From: Edward Morris [mailto:egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 1:12 PM
To: James M. Bladel; GNSO Council List; Phil Corwin
Subject: re: [council] RE: CCWG - Timeline for Approval by GNSO

 

Hi Phil and James,

 

Although the NCSG has yet to meet and formulate a position on the way forward, 
my strong personal preference would be not to have a special call and, instead, 
deal with this issue during our normal course of business in Morocco.

 

Part of the objection is personal: I'm not available on the 29th. Like many of 
my colleagues in the noncommercial community whose professional commitments are 
unrelated to ICANN, my schedule in the week preceding our 12 day (including 
travel) adventure to Morocco is set and packed. I'll be in the air most of the 
29th, travelling from the UK to Minnesota, in a meeting in St. Paul on the 
30th, and then heading for Morocco the next day. If we are to have a special 
call I would ask that a Doodle poll first be conducted to see who could attend 
and when.

 

I certainly respect Phil's concerns about delaying our vote. I do, however, 
believe the CCWG needs to take precedence over other issues. I do understand 
that those of us in the NCSG are a bit unique in that we freely and 
individually determine our own votes. For us, having F2F time prior to the full 
Council meeting to talk about our positions and concerns is very important. Not 
all of our Councillors have been intensely involved in the CCWG. That said, I 
would think that other SG's and C's might want to talk things over F2F before 
rendering a decision on this very important matter as well. In fact, ideally 
I'd delay the vote until our Tuesday meeting so all of us have ample 
opportunity to receive input from our members during earlier Constituency and 
SG meetings before we vote.

 

I also disagree with Phil when he writes that giving "significant momentum" to 
the final accountability proposal should be a concern. That's not our job. Our 
job is to consider the proposal, consult with our members, and vote 
appropriately. Provided we meet the deadline given to us by the CCWG we've done 
our job.

 

Best,

 

Ed

 

 

 

 

 

 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Phil Corwin" <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 5:37 PM
To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO Council List" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [council] RE: CCWG - Timeline for Approval by GNSO 

 

James:

 

This matter was just discussed on the regularly scheduled call of the BC, 
followed by further discussion among the BC Excomm members.

 

The strong preference of the BC is for Council to schedule a Special Session 
call on 2/29. There have been only a few significant changes to the 
Recommendations since Council last reviewed them, so we are not starting de 
novo. If we can complete our work on the 29th that would give significant 
momentum to the Final Accountability Proposal. If we can’t complete the work 
then at least we should be able to identify the few remaining Recommendations 
on which there may still be concerns, and then zero in on them in Marrakech. 

 

The BC has significant concerns about not starting the process until Saturday, 
March 5th (not 4th), as that could unduly impact our consideration of other 
matters on our agenda. Also, many of us will be jetlagged, and there are always 
unanticipated travel delays that may prevent some Councilors from participating.

 

Also, since our final action on the Charter for the RPM review WG will 
apparently be scheduled for Marrakech, we want to make sure that Council has 
sufficient time to complete it. The New gTLD Subsequent Rounds WG was 
authorized last month and as the two WGs will be coordinating it would be best 
to have their launches as close together as feasible.

 

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

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 7:40 PM
To: GNSO Council List
Subject: [PHISHING - This email could be a fraud attempt] - [council] CCWG - 
Timeline for Approval by GNSO

 

Council Colleagues -

 

Earlier this week, the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs updated the timeline for 
delivery of their Final / Supplemental report, which is now expected to be 
delivered to Chartering Organizations (GNSO) on 18 FEB.

 

And yesterday, the community received an update from Theresa Swinehart on how 
the Community would deliver the final proposal to the ICANN Board for review, 
approval, and submission to NTIA (attached).  The Board is scheduled to 
complete this task at their Thursday session at ICANN 55 in Marrakesh on 10 MAR.

 

The period bookended by these two dates — 18 FEB through 10 MAR—represents the 
time frame in which the ICANN Community must review and approve (or reject) the 
CCWG report and recommendations.  In our case, this work includes confirming 
that the pre-requisites established by the CWG-Stewardship have been satisfied 
(see: letter from GNSO Chairs to CWG-Stewardship Chairs, 
http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/bladel-to-robinson-fuhr-09feb16-en.pdf).

 

It goes without saying that this is a very tight schedule, even if everything 
goes exactly according to plan.  And there are only a few chances for the 
Council to gather, discuss the views of our Stakeholder Groups and 
Constituencies, and ultimately vote on the CCWG report.  

 

To give ourselves the best opportunity to deliver, I propose that we augment 
our meeting schedule between now and the deadline by one or more of these 
options:

 

(1) Hold a Special Session of the GNSO Council on 29 FEB @ 2100UTC – Our 
procedures require 7 day advance notice to convene an off-calendar meeting of 
the GNSO Council.  This date would be available following our next call and 
delivery of the CCWG report on 18 FEB, and completing this work before 
Marrakesh would be a huge win.  Downside:  This will only allow 11 days for 
SGs/Cs to review & discuss the report, and many of us will be departing for 
Marrakesh shortly thereafter.

 

(2) Re-purpose some or all of the time on Saturday 4 MAR as a Special Session – 
This is already on everyone’s calendar, and would be an excellent time to 
discuss the CCWG and conduct a vote, and would provide another week or so for 
SG/C review.  Downside: We would need to sacrifice some portion of our “usual” 
Saturday agenda.  For example, we could ask for Working Group updates via 
email, rather than in person.

 

(3) Re-purpose some or all of the time on Tuesday, 8 MAR as  a Special Session 
– This meeting is also already on the calendar.  Typically it has been an 
informal discussion among the Council to prepare for the Wednesday Public 
Meeting, so we would sacrifice some or all of that.  And with another meeting 
the next day, there wouldn’t be much time to work out any last minute issues.

 

Regardless of which option(s) we choose, we must consider the Public Meeting on 
9 MAR as a can’t-miss deadline for our approval (or reaction) of the CCWG. 
Also, we should look for opportunities to parallelize work streams, for 
example, by initiating the SG/C processes to review the CCWG as soon as 
possible.

 

This is what I propose for discussion on our next call.  There may be other 
options as well, so please bring your ideas next Thursday.

 

Thanks for reading this far, and looking forward to our time together next week.

 

J.

 

 

 

 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16
Internal Virus Database is out of date.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16
Internal Virus Database is out of date.