Other chartering organisations (see, for example, ALAC:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/pdfeO5FTDW5b5.pdf
) have given clear indications of approval / disapproval of each of the twelve recommendations, along with reasoning thereof. I'd suggest we do the same. I'm ambivalent as to whether we indicate our preferences in the form of a Motion or a letter from our
Chair, but I do believe the CCWG needs the simplified guidance that only a straight up / down decision on each recommendation can give.
From: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:07 PM
To: "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com>
Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report
Hi,
I agree that a formal vote is not absolutely needed at this stage, but I wonder whether or not a formal vote of the 3rd draft recommendations would be helpful to the CCWG. I imagine that it will draw a very clear picture of where the stakeholder groups/constituencies
of one of the CCWG’s chartering organisations stand on each of the recommendations.
Although these positions have probably been communicated by the appointed members from the GNSO groups, my guess would be that the members of the CCWG may still find a Council vote helpful.
Just a thought.
Thanks.
Amr
> On Jan 13, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Johan Helsingius <
julf@julf.com> wrote:
>
>
> Wolf-Ulrich,
>
>> Maybe tomorrow we could sort out and discuss the very last not yet
>> agreeable recs. The formal vote could then be taken at a later stage – maybe
>> even at the council meeting next week.
>
> I am not entirely sure why a formal vote is needed now, assuming
> there will have to be one more, final(?) draft - surely what counts
> is the vote on the *final* version. Or am I wrong in my assumptions?
>
> Julf
>
>
>