<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] RE: CCWG - Timeline for Approval by GNSO
One of the risks in any approach you choose is that those of us who have
been merely skulking on the lists will decide to object to something.
There are a couple of things where I don't like the compromise struck,
but I am holding my tongue since I have not been working day and night
for the past year on this stuff like you folks.
Stephanie
On 16-02-13 10:47 AM, Phil Corwin wrote:
Those are reasonable points, Ed. Indeed, if the Proposal will not be
final until March 4^th 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 29^th 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 29^th 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 5^th (not 4^th ), 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) R_e-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
>>>
|