<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>I agree to discuss the response format at first. In this context looking at
the requirements the CCWG charter is setting here might be of assistance
(section V, Decision-Making Methodologies):</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>“ SO and AC support for the Draft Proposal(s)</DIV>
<DIV>Following submission of the Draft Proposal(s), each of the chartering
organizations shall, in accordance with their own rules and procedures, review
and discuss the Draft Proposal(s) and <STRONG>decide whether to adopt the
recommendations contained</STRONG> in it....”</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>For me “decision” and “adoption” means a firm answer to be provided by the
SO, not just a report of the various positions within it. I’d feel more
comfortable – also with regards to future reference – if in the end we had a
formal vote. This could be done eg. rec. by rec. and finally about the whole
package – or in any more sophisticated way.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I understand that the discussion process within some SGs/Cs is not yet
finished. Eg this is the case within the ISPCP constituency where we’ll have a
call on Friday this week. From the ongoing CCWG discussion I’ve taken the
impresseion that the timeline at the moment is a bit weak (it depends on SO/AC
input for sure). 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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Best regards</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Wolf-Ulrich</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- </DIV>
<DIV>From: James M. Bladel </DIV>
<DIV>Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 3:35 AM </DIV>
<DIV>To: McGrady, Paul D. ; Marika Konings </DIV>
<DIV>Cc: Johan Helsingius ; GNSO Council List </DIV>
<DIV>Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG
Accountability Third Draft Report </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Hi Paul. Sorry for any confusion.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The option to forego a formal vote and simply communicate our
position(s)</DIV>
<DIV>via letter to the CCWG Co-Chairs is still on the table, but some have</DIV>
<DIV>expressed a preference for a more formal measure (and recording) of
GNSO</DIV>
<DIV>support. This discussion of how to format our response should be
the</DIV>
<DIV>first agenda item for our call on Thursday.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And if it helps address the concerns of SGs and Cs, keep in mind that
our</DIV>
<DIV>objective is to capture and reflect the substance of positions
already</DIV>
<DIV>submitted during the Public Comment period. None of us are asking (or</DIV>
<DIV>authorized) to negotiate these positions, or agree to any new or
modified</DIV>
<DIV>support conditions. We either identify & present the common
GNSO</DIV>
<DIV>positions (where apparent), or (if necessary, in the event of
divergence)</DIV>
<DIV>refer the CCWG back to the individual SG/C comments.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Hope this is helpful, and looking forward to our call Thursday.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thanks—</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>J.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>On 1/11/16, 16:21 , "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@winston.com>
wrote:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>>Thanks all. I'm confused. We appear to be talking about the
formal</DIV>
<DIV>>mechanisms of a vote, but I thought we left it with Thursday's call
being</DIV>
<DIV>>a time to go through the "temperature taking" document that the
subgroup</DIV>
<DIV>>went through and then find a mechanism to send that to the CCWG
(perhaps</DIV>
<DIV>>by letter but most likely not a formal up or down vote) and that
the</DIV>
<DIV>>formal up or down may come at a later date when we have the next
draft</DIV>
<DIV>>from the CCWG. Is that still the plan? If not, I need to
let me C know</DIV>
<DIV>>that and start to get more formal instructions than the
"temperature</DIV>
<DIV>>taking" comments I have been pushing my folks for. Thanks in
advance for</DIV>
<DIV>>your thoughts.</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>>Best,</DIV>
<DIV>>Paul</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>>-----Original Message-----</DIV>
<DIV>>From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]</DIV>
<DIV>>On Behalf Of James M. Bladel</DIV>
<DIV>>Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 6:10 PM</DIV>
<DIV>>To: Marika Konings</DIV>
<DIV>>Cc: Johan Helsingius; GNSO Council List</DIV>
<DIV>>Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG</DIV>
<DIV>>Accountability Third Draft Report</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>>Thanks for the correction Marika.</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>>Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri.</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>>> On Jan 11, 2016, at 15:19, Marika Konings
<marika.konings@icann.org></DIV>
<DIV>>>wrote:</DIV>
<DIV>>> </DIV>
<DIV>>> For the record, under the GNSO Operating Procedures an
abstention</DIV>
<DIV>>> actually counts as a Œno vote¹ (See section 4.5.3 - 'According
to</DIV>
<DIV>>> existing rules, any abstention would not contribute to the passing
of</DIV>
<DIV>>> a motion; therefore, by default, an abstention functions as a
³No²</DIV>
<DIV>>> vote. The purpose of the remedial procedures in this section is
to</DIV>
<DIV>>>minimize this effect¹).</DIV>
<DIV>>> </DIV>
<DIV>>> Best regards,</DIV>
<DIV>>> </DIV>
<DIV>>> Marika</DIV>
<DIV>>> </DIV>
<DIV>>> On 11/01/16 20:12, "owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of
Johan</DIV>
<DIV>>> Helsingius" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of
julf@julf.com></DIV>
<DIV>>> wrote:</DIV>
<DIV>>> </DIV>
<DIV>>>> </DIV>
<DIV>>>> Hi, James, and thank you for the clarifications!</DIV>
<DIV>>>> </DIV>
<DIV>>>>> On each issue, the Council will consider the question of
whether or</DIV>
<DIV>>>>> not the harmonized statement reflects the consolidated
position of</DIV>
<DIV>>>>> the GNSO, including any conditions or unmet concerns
expressed in</DIV>
<DIV>>>>>SG/C comments.</DIV>
<DIV>>>>> It</DIV>
<DIV>>>>> will be a yes(Support) or no(Object) vote, with any
abstentions</DIV>
<DIV>>>>> having the effect of 'Support'.</DIV>
<DIV>>>> </DIV>
<DIV>>>> And in case of lack of majority support, it will be 'limited
support'?</DIV>
<DIV>>>> </DIV>
<DIV>>>>> One point on which we have been consistent is that the
GNSO response</DIV>
<DIV>>>>> is limited to only the CCWG Third Draft, and is not
responding to</DIV>
<DIV>>>>> comments filed by the Board or other groups. This is
essential to</DIV>
<DIV>>>>> allow the CCWG to proceed on any next (final?) draft and
its work on</DIV>
<DIV>>>>>WS2.</DIV>
<DIV>>>> </DIV>
<DIV>>>> So we are assuming one more round of comments?</DIV>
<DIV>>>> </DIV>
<DIV>>>>> Hope this is helpful!</DIV>
<DIV>>>> </DIV>
<DIV>>>> Very much so, thanks!</DIV>
<DIV>>>> </DIV>
<DIV>>>> Julf</DIV>
<DIV>>> </DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>>The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential.</DIV>
<DIV>>Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete
it</DIV>
<DIV>>without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to
waive</DIV>
<DIV>>any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message
without</DIV>
<DIV>>the permission of the author.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>