[CCWG-ACCT] Timing and agenda Thursday's call and options to be discussed?

[James Gannon]

Understood fully, but I just ask that the GAC understand that the GNSO is currently working very hard to agree on that exact item so that we can come to a compromise that works for all stakeholders involved. As the GAC of all groups understands this is a complex and time consuming effort to ensure that those of us on the CCWG are reflecting the wishes of the GNSO as a whole and that our constituent members views are reflected in any final consensus.

This is not something that we are dragging our feet on intentionally we are working to ensure that our position on the Becky/Kavouss proposal is solid and final for other stakeholders to work with.

-jg

Sent from my iPad

> On 4 Feb 2016, at 06:27, "Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
> 
> Dear James
> 
> I understand your point.
> 
> However, rec11 has been reopened at the gnso's behest in the ccwg.
> 
> I guess that GAC colleagues would need to know what exactly is needed/suggested by the part of the community (gnso) who is trying to change a prior compromise which directly affects our part (gac).
> 
> Without that a meaningful debate is quite difficult, especially when you are talking about govts and a large group of them working on a full consensus rule.
> 
> best
> Jorge
> 
> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
> 
>> Am 04.02.2016 um 07:20 schrieb James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>:
>> 
>> I obviously do not speak for the GNSO but I think that the Becky/Kavouss discussions are gaining much traction and may be acceptable to the GNSO. But like yourself we are in the situation of having to consult with our own very diverse stakeholders and constituents, so if it feels like the GNSO has not agreed a position that you can take to yours its because of exactly the same reason, we cannot come out in support of a single proposal until have confirmed that it is understood and accepted by our own memberships. And given that some constituencies are very large (Not just my own) that can take a few days to confirm.
>> 
>> -James
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 04/02/2016, 6:04 a.m., "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch" <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear Thomas
>>> 
>>> Thank you for this info. The attachment seems not to be working.
>>> 
>>> I'm still unclear on what is what the GNSO participants and members -who after all reopened the compromise reached on rec 11- need for rec 11.
>>> 
>>> Hence it is difficult to start national consultations and even less easy to conduct a meaningful debate within the GAC without knowing whether we should consult on one, two, three or even more suggestions directed to satisfy the gnso.
>>> 
>>> I hope our GNSO colleagues may be able to clarify and detail their needs and proposals today, so that we can try to get national feedback and have a discussion in the GAC asap.
>>> 
>>> Thanks and regards
>>> 
>>> Jorge
>>> 
>>> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
>>> 
>>> Am 03.02.2016 um 18:52 schrieb Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>:
>>> 
>>> All,
>>> you should have invitations for the calls on Thursday and Monday in the meantime.
>>> 
>>> Please note that we dropped the voting because suggestions made by Becky, Kavouss and Malcolm got some traction.
>>> 
>>> However, let us please clarify that we are not prescribing what a new compromise / consensus could look like. It can be individual suggestions, combinations thereof of even new ideas.
>>> 
>>> Becky had laid out the proposals on the table in an e-mail, which I have attached to this note.
>>> 
>>> The options on the table and ideas you might have shall be further discussed tomorrow.
>>> 
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Thomas
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> <Here is an attempt to articulate the proposals on the table.>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Am 03.02.2016 um 07:01 schrieb Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>:
>>> 
>>> Hello co-chairs
>>> 
>>> Could you please respond to the email below?
>>> 
>>> Consultations in our constituencies are quite difficult whithout a clear process and timeline and agenda from your side.
>>> 
>>> Please answer this in full and do not point to general information:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> We would also be grateful for an agenda, including a clear identification (and the text) of the options to be discussed, as was requested during this morning's call in the chat.
>>> 
>>> thanks and regards
>>> 
>>> Jorge
>>> 
>>> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
>>> 
>>> Anfang der weitergeleiteten E‑Mail:
>>> 
>>> Von: <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
>>> Datum: 2. Februar 2016 um 18:51:55 MEZ
>>> An: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
>>> Betreff: Timing and agenda Thursday's call and options to be discussed?
>>> 
>>> Dear co-chairs and staff
>>> 
>>> Have you already sent the invites for the call on Thursday?
>>> 
>>> We would also be grateful for an agenda, including a clear identification (and the text) of the options to be discussed, as was requested during this morning's call in the chat.
>>> 
>>> Thanks and regards
>>> 
>>> Jorge
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community