<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Proposed letter to the Drafting Team
On further thought, I note that this letter is to the Bylaws drafting team, not
the Board.
That doesn't alter my suggestions on consulting with individual SGs/Cs, and
making sure there are no deviations identified - but it does assuage my concern
that the comments will not be given serious consideration.
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 Phil Corwin
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 10:19 PM
To: Paul McGrady; 'James M. Bladel'; 'Drazek, Keith'
Cc: 'Marika Konings'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Proposed letter to the Drafting Team
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>
[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<mailto: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
________________________________
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|