RE: [council] Proposed letter to the Drafting Team

["Paul McGrady" <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks James.  I think we just delete:

 

"These include:

 

 

[Paul McGrady to pull these links out of the public comment after it
closes]"

 

If we aren't prepared to draw attention to all of the comments by GNSO
members, I don't want  to see a hierarchy in place by making some referred
to directly and some "also of interest".  This is especially so due to the
lack of utility of the letter generally.  When I asked that we send one, it
was when I was still operating under the impression that there would be a
good faith process by which the public comments were carefully reviewed and
considered prior to adoption of the bylaws.  From what we have seen from
Bruce's email, that will not be the case.  

 

Best to all,

Paul

 

 

 

 

From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 11:23 AM
To: Paul McGrady; Drazek, Keith
Cc: Marika Konings; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Proposed letter to the Drafting Team

 

Paul -

 

If I'm understanding correctly, we could modify this sentence:

 

"We ask you to carefully review each of these comments and give them serious
consideration."

 

To something like:

 

"We ask you to carefully review each of these comments, and any other
submissions from members of the broader GNSO Community, and give them
serious consideration."

 

 

Thanks-

 

J.

 

From: Paul McGrady <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, May 23, 2016 at 11:18 
To: Keith Drazek <kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Marika Konings
<marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] Proposed letter to the Drafting Team

 

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
<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso>  and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages
<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-
efforts.htm#newcomers> .

 

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