<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
<div>You may also be interested to see the approach the ccNSO Council took in their comments on the third draft proposal: <a href="http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-draft-3-proposal-07jan16-en.pdf">http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-draft-3-proposal-07jan16-en.pdf</a>.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best regards,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Marika</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span><<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>> on behalf of Edward Morris <<a href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net">egmorris1@toast.net</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Reply-To: </span>Edward Morris <<a href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net">egmorris1@toast.net</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Wednesday 13 January 2016 at 15:42<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>Johan Helsingius <<a href="mailto:julf@julf.com">julf@julf.com</a>>, Amr Elsadr <<a href="mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org">aelsadr@egyptig.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span>WUKnoben <<a href="mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de">wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de</a>>, GNSO Council List <<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Sans-Serif; font-size: 12px">
<div>Hi,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Other chartering organisations (see, for example, ALAC: <a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/pdfeO5FTDW5b5.pdf">http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/pdfeO5FTDW5b5.pdf</a>
) 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. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ed </div>
<div> </div>
<div style="-webkit-touch-callout: none; -webkit-user-select: none; -khtml-user-select: none;-moz-user-select: none;-ms-user-select: none;-o-user-select: none;user-select: none;">
</div>
<div> </div>
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%">
<div><span style="font-family: tahoma,arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><b>From</b>: "Amr Elsadr" <<a href="mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org">aelsadr@egyptig.org</a>><br>
<b>Sent</b>: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:07 PM<br>
<b>To</b>: "Johan Helsingius" <<a href="mailto:julf@julf.com">julf@julf.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc</b>: "WUKnoben" <<a href="mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de">wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de</a>>, "GNSO Council List" <<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject</b>: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report</span>
<div> </div>
<br>
Hi,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Just a thought.<br>
<br>
Thanks.<br>
<br>
Amr<br>
<br>
> On Jan 13, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Johan Helsingius <<a href="mailto:julf@julf.com">julf@julf.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> Wolf-Ulrich,<br>
><br>
>> Maybe tomorrow we could sort out and discuss the very last not yet<br>
>> agreeable recs. The formal vote could then be taken at a later stage – maybe<br>
>> even at the council meeting next week.<br>
><br>
> I am not entirely sure why a formal vote is needed now, assuming<br>
> there will have to be one more, final(?) draft - surely what counts<br>
> is the vote on the *final* version. Or am I wrong in my assumptions?<br>
><br>
> Julf<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</span></div>
</div>
</span>
</body>
</html>