RE: [council] Proposed letter to the Drafting Team

[Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

As I think I understand from reviewing the thread, the current text now reads 
as follows:

                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.

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

If that's the case, then I have no serious objection to sending it, although I 
do have some misgivings.

It doesn't convey much beyond asking the Board to take their job seriously (and 
should we have to ask that in the first place?), and that we're available for 
consultation. But we (in terms of the Council as a whole) are not really 
available to explain the views files by the various SGs and Cs, as each of them 
emphasized different points - so maybe the letter should say that we are sure 
each of the separate groups making up the GNSO are available to further explain 
their POV.

The real misgiving, now that we know when the Board has scheduled its vote (and 
the outcome is preordained, I think we'd all agree) is that, by saying nothing 
further, we concede by implication that a vote six days after the closing of 
the comment period constitutes serious consideration by the Board.

At the least I think we should ask that they take steps, through consultation 
with their own lawyers and those advising the CCWG and CWG, to assure that that 
none of the comments has identified a draft Bylaws provision that materially 
deviates from the final reports and recommendations - and that if they have, 
that the deviation has been cured.

Thanks for your consideration.

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] On 
Behalf Of Paul McGrady
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 5:14 PM
To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'Drazek, Keith'
Cc: 'Marika Konings'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Proposed letter to the Drafting Team

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<mailto: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<mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Monday, May 23, 2016 at 11:18
To: Keith Drazek <kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, Marika 
Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>, GNSO 
Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Fully agree with James here.

Regards,
Keith

From:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Monday, May 23, 2016 at 8:15
To: 'Marika Konings' 
<marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>, James Bladel 
<jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, GNSO Council List 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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> 
[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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on 
behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Sunday 22 May 2016 at 13:35
To: Paul McGrady <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on 
behalf of Paul McGrady <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 6:01
To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16