<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] RE: CCWG - Timeline for Approval by GNSO
I understand the option to hold a call on 29 Feb as a chance to discuss where
we are and what are the very final remaining issues if there were some. So far
I’m in favour of having this call. Voting could then also be just an option in
case we could see a chance to solve those issues at the call. But it is not a
must.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Edward Morris
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 8:21 PM
To: Austin, Donna
Cc: Phil Corwin ; James M. Bladel ; GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] RE: CCWG - Timeline for Approval by GNSO
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.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|