ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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


Those are reasonable points, Ed. Indeed, if the Proposal will not be final 
until March 4th then we should not lock down our decisions until we are sure of 
the final details of each Recommendation.

That said, I did not envision a call on 2/29 (or some other 
pre-departure-for-Marrakech call date) as involving voting. Rather, I presumed 
it would be a dialogue in which we could separate out those Recommendations on 
which there is general consensus within Council (provided that no material 
revisions are made in the penultimate document) from those on which there was 
still divisions or even opposition, and thereby set the table for a more 
focused and efficient consideration of the remaining matters once we reach 
Marrakech.

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: Friday, February 12, 2016 3:43 PM
To: WUKnoben
Cc: Austin, Donna; Phil Corwin; James M. Bladel; GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] RE: CCWG - Timeline for Approval by GNSO

Hi Wolf-Ulrich,

Thanks for this.

I certainly have no objection to an informational call or a call to discuss 
options or to take temperatures. As previously stated I have a conflict on the 
29th and won't be able to attend but I have no problems with others doing so if 
they feel such a call would have value.

My only concern is voting prior to the final CCWG WS1 meeting on March 4th. 
That I oppose. I think it's advisable for the GNSO to maintain its options 
until after that meeting so as to ensure maximum GNSO leverage during that 
meeting. I'd also be hesitant to vote either way on recommendation 12, for 
example, until I see what comes out of the March 4th meeting.

As such, although I'm fine with an informational call for folks who want it I 
would be opposed to any vote whatsoever prior to the evening of March 4th as 
there is still incoming information from the CCWG that will help inform our 
vote.

Thanks again, Wolf-Ulrich.

Best,

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

On 12 Feb 2016, at 20:29, WUKnoben 
<wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
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<mailto:egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 8:21 PM
To: Austin, Donna<mailto:Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Phil Corwin<mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx> ; James M. 
Bladel<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> ; GNSO Council 
List<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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<mailto: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<http://www.facebook.com/neustarinc>   
<image002.png> LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349>   <image003.png> 
Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/neustar>
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.





From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin
Sent: Thursday, 11 February 2016 10:48 AM
To: egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>; James M. Bladel 
<jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>; GNSO Council List 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 5:37 PM
To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, "GNSO 
Council List" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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> 
[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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailer.samanage.com_wf_click-3Fupn-3DKTB340yHI8DoUtMP4BGJnral-2D2F6hkupRgT5qivhStIqr2ZFbl2b5V4xCQpPznEaa-2D2FxWJEigFYQfTBJN-2D2Bdl-2D2BSHMJy6sVsMoNFnqsBoe3sXUXeXyFSHyv8KOR680HTr-2D2FsBc-5Fr-2D2BdYbSjRm9r0i9vSiPZtW-2D2BX-2D2BAwnBbxYJcYft8cAni3iLz7nHdH1TO6yId4yJ1X5bCjn7UQ8ekPGWrKZXzU-2D2FB1vqqq7KS-2D2BMznRij3m3ZEI87WW3StxS8dTPOoQSB9krb-2D2FFJK2QHBzOYchxlxB81-2D2FrQgEKCZwhIWmFeV3hThjRR7ogCkshuA-2D2FPie9e6zmA6P8L3PT94AkaY2fBj5moRKaUuaFK6mapGaPGeLlkY8gT97SpWeLhWva4slSYkQ9KeJt6rcWbTiWYhnWhQbyxB49wI6Dum0Zm98iK1-2D2FqCU2JSxS-2D2Fvu3cYUFgja-2D2FBAVl58mXE-2D2BX6IfgFADNkuGde0W0wVw91BPHLJJ-2D2FVHeGlQhbVNtSTmYZClb01BzM8m2nmbkBFT4MYmAEpwO4p-2D2Fx0ntTR9iHFyRlCfKFw9Z-2D2F1cgBfMOOWLfbEhf5TSeM5OApdjdm5qCD3FkeVrkI-2D2BTgfoWZxpmIFgyAhifTpgVaw7GFW4jYGQeI-2D3D&d=CwMFAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=4uwCXMcvi0lNIf0sD-6X-FBlPSb4LPuKRNooWMc_SlE&s=-u06NkBQyOhCwwCAgVGAgRfIXFmwYNkEGhHh5oJlIdk&e=>).

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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=CwMFAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=4uwCXMcvi0lNIf0sD-6X-FBlPSb4LPuKRNooWMc_SlE&s=_NzIR8CnuShwxqf_0_VaExRfY2ClfsRgcHTL-y-QyA0&e=>
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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=CwMFAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=4uwCXMcvi0lNIf0sD-6X-FBlPSb4LPuKRNooWMc_SlE&s=_NzIR8CnuShwxqf_0_VaExRfY2ClfsRgcHTL-y-QyA0&e=>
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<http://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 >>>