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

["Edward Morris" <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Donna,



> 
> All
>  
> I also support a separate call on 29 February, prior to Marrakech, provided 
> we meet quorum requirements for a Council meeting. I generally agree with 
> Phil: “If we can complete our work on the 29th that would give significant 
> momentum to the Final Accountability Proposal

Giving momentum to a CCWG is not the responsibility of the Council. Carefully 
considering the implications of the results of a CCWG, particularly as rushed 
as this one, is.

>  
> I’m also concerned that if we have the first conversation in Marrakech it 
> will be a meeting of the Council plus those who attend the session, which 
> could result in challenges for the Council in determining what to take on 
> board and what not to.

I welcome input from my members and from members of the community who wish to 
opine on the matter. It's that messy democracy thing. What I do not want is a 
rushed, forced vote witnessed by few. The more input the better and I, for one, 
welcome it.

One other consideration is the CCWG meeting scheduled for the Friday preceding 
the meeting. Amongst other things WS2 arrangements will be discussed. WS2 is 
extremely important for my members and for many in the GNSO. I really want to 
see what comes out of that meeting before I vote on the supplemental. If forced 
to vote before this Friday meeting you can anticipate opposition by me to all 
12 recommendations. I'm not sure that's the momentum folks here are looking 
for. 

We need to maintain our leverage in the Friday meeting via a vis the other 
ACSOs. I've been doing the CCWG for 14 months now and the one thing I've 
learned is to expect last minute stunts by some of our fellow groups. We need 
to maintain all of our options until after that meeting, until the direction of 
WS2 becomes a lot clearer.

I should note we've already discussed these matters ad infitum. I think the 
package is in pretty good shape unless this early vote is forced.   The 
compromises made since the 3rd report all are in a pro GNSO direction. They 
have certainly satisfied many of my concerns. That said, if a vote is scheduled 
prior to the March 4th CCWG meeting I will not support this Supplemental. 
Simply put, there is no good reason to vote early and if the March 4th meeting 
results in a way forward for the CCWG that my members do not support...I'm 
unwilling to go back to them and say, sorry, I voted early to give the 
transition some "momentum", we're stuck with something we no longer support.

Best,

Ed




>  
> Donna
>  
> Donna Austin: Neustar, Inc.
> Policy and Industry Affairs Manager
> Cell: +1.310.890.9655 Email: donna.austin@xxxxxxxxxxx
>  
> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
> of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or 
> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have 
> received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, 
> distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have 
> received this communication in error, please notify me immediately and delete 
> the original message.
> Follow Neustar:   <image001.png> Facebook   <image002.png> LinkedIn   
> <image003.png> Twitter
> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Phil Corwin
> Sent: Thursday, 11 February 2016 10:48 AM
> To: egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx; James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>; GNSO Council 
> List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 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.