Re: [council] Proposed letter to the Drafting Team

[Paul McGrady <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Likewise, excluding members of the GNSO community could be viewed as elevating 
comments from constituent bodies of the GNSO above actual users of ICANN 
services within the GNSO. To solve the problem, how about let's not provide 
links, just tell them they need to take comments made by GNSO members 
seriously?  

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 23, 2016, at 12:04 PM, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Fully agree with James here.
>  
> Regards,
> Keith
>  
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of James M. Bladel
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 10:57 AM
> To: Paul McGrady; 'Marika Konings'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [council] Proposed letter to the Drafting Team
>  
> Hi Paul -
>  
> Off the cuff, I have some concerns about Council going further than official 
> positions by the SGs/Cs.  Most individuals or organizations have some 
> affiliation with the GNSO, and it would be difficult to make a clear 
> distinction.  The risks of us referencing one comment, while leaving out one 
> from an equivalent person or group (even if due to error) could be seen as 
> Council endorsement.  
>  
> Also, consider the scenario where there are significant differences between 
> the position of a commenter versus their respective SG/C.   If the RrSG 
> comments in favor of chocolate ice cream, but comments from GoDaddy favor 
> vanilla, then by including both the Council could be perceived as undermining 
> the consensus-building processes within that SG/C.  In this case, the IPC & 
> NTIA comments are probably aligned, but absent an analysis from Staff, we 
> should be cautious about inserting ourselves in to any position differences.
>  
> I understand your intention to present a list that is as comprehensive as 
> possible, but I’m concerned that there’s no way to do so in a fair an 
> equitable manner, and especially without creating precedent for future 
> comments. But I’d welcome thoughts from other Councilors on this point.
>  
> Thanks—
>  
> J.
>  
>  
> From: Paul McGrady <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Monday, May 23, 2016 at 8:15 
> To: 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, James Bladel 
> <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [council] Proposed letter to the Drafting Team
>  
> Thanks Marika.  I think we have to go more granular than just the C’, SG’s 
> etc.  For example, INTA put in public comments.  They are a member of the IPC 
> and a therefore a member of the GNSO community.
>  
> Best,
> Paul
>  
>  
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Marika Konings
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 7:59 AM
> To: James M. Bladel; Paul McGrady; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [council] Proposed letter to the Drafting Team
>  
> I believe Bruce just answered question #1. With regards to bullet 3:
> IPC - 
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-new-bylaws-21apr16/msg00028.html
> NCSG - 
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-new-bylaws-21apr16/msg00022.html
> BC - 
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-new-bylaws-21apr16/msg00024.html
> ISPCP - 
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-new-bylaws-21apr16/msg00012.html
> RySG - 
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-new-bylaws-21apr16/msg00011.html
> Best regards,
>  
> Marika
>  
> Marika Konings
> Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for 
> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 
> Email: marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx  
>  
> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting 
> the GNSO Newcomer pages.
>  
> From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" 
> <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sunday 22 May 2016 at 13:35
> To: Paul McGrady <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" 
> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [council] Proposed letter to the Drafting Team
>  
> Hi Paul -
>  
> Thanks for kicking this off.  Generally, I’m good with this letter.  A few 
> questions/comments:
> Given the compressed timeline, can we ask Staff to confirm whether or not the 
> Drafting Team will have an opportunity to amend the proposed bylaws before 
> submitting to the Board?  I’m assuming they will, but…
> Should we also cc: the Board and/or CCWG Co-Chairs? (hedge)
> With the Comment Period now closed, could we task someone from Policy Staff 
> to assist Paul in gathering links to GNSO comments?
> The Board is meeting this week to consider the draft bylaws.  It is therefore 
> imperative that we move quickly to get this sent.  Councilors, please send 
> edits/comments/concerns by EOD (Pacific) Monday to ensure that this is posted 
> overnight Tuesday.
> Thanks again—
>  
> J.
>  
> From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Paul McGrady 
> <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 6:01 
> To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [council] Proposed letter to the Drafting Team
>  
> Hi all,
>  
> On our last call, I volunteered t draft a short letter from James to the 
> Bylaws Drafting Team.  Here is the proposed body of that letter to be kicked 
> around the Council list:
>  
> ________
>  
> Dear Bylaws Drafting Team:
>  
> The GNSO Council thanks you for your efforts in attempting to distill the 
> instructions found in the CCWG-Accountability Report into a revised version 
> of ICANN’s Bylaws.  We note that the draft Bylaws have generated significant 
> public comment from members of the GNSO community.  These include:
>  
>  
> [Paul McGrady to pull these links out of the public comment after it closes]
>  
> We ask you to carefully review each of these comments and give them serious 
> consideration.  It is important that the revised Bylaws remain faithful to 
> the CCWG-Accountability Report on which we, as a Council, were called upon to 
> vote in Marrakech.  We are fully at your disposal should you wish to consult 
> us on any issue raised in the comments generated by the GNSO community.
>  
> Kind regards,
> James Bladel
>  
>  
>  
> Best,
> Paul
> policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>  
>