[council] Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Phil. I’ll put that down as support for option (a)  Proceed with the 
meeting, and waive the document deadline for the CCWG.  Basically, we will 
consider the report whenever it arrives, so long as it’s before the call.

Thanks—

J.

From: Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 21:08
To: James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, GNSO 
Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs

James:

As stated in my own email to the Council list, this delays release of the Final 
Report until at least next Wednesday at the earliest.

If it is delivered sometime next week I think that argues even more strongly 
for a February 29th call, to initiate our review as well as discuss the 
feasibility of the timeline for final GNSO action by March 9th.

If it is not released until after 2/26 I think we will need to seriously 
discuss the timeline.

These are my personal views as I have not yet consulted with the BC on this 
unexpected development.

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: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 9:23 PM
To: GNSO Council List
Subject: [council] Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs

Colleagues -

Please see below.  The CCWG will not publish today, which is the document 
cut-off for our Special Session on 29 FEB.

I’m open to proposals that we either (a) waive the document cut off for this 
document, and proceed with the Special Session, or (b) cancel the Special 
Session.  I tend to favor the first approach, but will defer to the sentiment 
of the group on this.  Any thoughts from the Council on this?

On our call Thursday we noted that we would not want our first exposure to the 
CCWG Report was in Marrakesh.  Today’s development makes this scenario more 
likely.  In response, I think we should prepare to repurpose additional 
sessions (potentially Sunday, Tuesday and Wednesday) in Morocco for this work.  
But we will have a clearer picture next week.

Stay tuned.

Thanks—

J.


From: 
<accountability-cross-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxx>>
 on behalf of León Felipe Sánchez Ambía 
<leonfelipe@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:leonfelipe@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 18:19
To: Accountability Cross Community 
<accountability-cross-community@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:accountability-cross-community@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "ACCT-Staff (acct-staff@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:acct-staff@xxxxxxxxx>)" 
<acct-staff@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:acct-staff@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs

Dear all,

As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19 February 
2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to do so, except 
for one issue where we would like to consider options as a full group.
There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for Board 
removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we came 
to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation #11). 
Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text that would be acceptable 
by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at 
https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw).
We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority statements, 
from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the Board. Earlier 
today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note, apparently on behalf of 
the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise 
text proposed on 17 February: 
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/011056.html.
While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for those of us 
who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their respective 
communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main target and duty 
remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, 
multistakeholder nature of the process.
It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the 
report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board 
disagreement later in the process.
We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report to 
Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity to 
discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesday’s 
CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and directions 
the group can take at this stage, each with different implications and 
considerations, and these options should be discussed as a group.
Until the Tuesday call, let’s keep open channels of communication on our 
mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the 
Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule.
As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every Participant, our 
call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in 
the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage constructively and 
recognize each other’s value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe that 
the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to act accordingly.
 Thank you,

Thomas, León, Mathieu
CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs


________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16