[council] FW: GNSO review of Third Draft Proposal

Sat Dec 26 11:00:11 UTC 2015

Hi James,

 Thanks for this.

 I did receive an e-mail from one of our hard working colleagues asking if the NCSG opinion was not, in fact, merely a composite of the NPOC and NCUC opinions. Actually, the answer to that is 'no'. The noncommercial space is a bit different than the others to work in. Although most of our NCSG members belong to the NPOOC, the NCUC or both,  similar in some ways to the CSG, we do have members who belong to neither constituency and instead are members of the NCSG only, similar to members in the CPH SGs. In addition, the leadership of the NCSG, NPOC and NCUC are generally different and as with our Councillors, who are not normally bound on their votes, leaders of these groups generally have freedom of conscience in their actions. For example, in it's CCWG comments the NPOC approved of all twelve recommendations, the NCSG did not approve of four,  yet Sam Lanfranco, who is both the Chair of the NPOC policy committee and an appointee to the NCSG PC,  joined in declaring consensus approving the NCSG comment.

 Each NCSG Councillor is elected at the SG level and is charged with representing on Council all members be they NPOC, NCUC or unitary NCSG members. In doing so, we obviously consult with the members themselves and the elected leadership of all three groups. I hope this better explains why certain structural  issues that have arisen recently might be a bit more salient for us in the NCSG than for Councillors from groups with a more unitary remit.

 If you could re-submit your message with the noncommercial links as follows it would be much appreciated:

  Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG)
 Survey Response - http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/msg00076.html

  Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC), Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group
Comment - http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/msg00069.html

 Non-Profit Organizations Constituency (NPOC), Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group
Survey Response - http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/msg00051.html

 Thanks James. Here's hoping that Santa was good to you and your family and that everyone on Council, s well as our fine staff,  is having a wonderful and peaceful holiday season.

 Kind Regards,

 Ed Morris

----------------------------------------
 From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2015 10:34 PM
To: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net>
Cc: "Marika Konings" <marika.konings at icann.org>, "GNSO Council List" <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] FW: GNSO review of Third Draft Proposal   
 Hi Ed. 

 Sorry for the error. If you can send the links as you'd like them to appear, we will send a correction. 

 J. 

Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri.   

On Dec 24, 2015, at 16:01, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:

  Hi James,

 Thanks for all of your hard work on this.

 There is a mistake in the links section of your letter to the CCWG Chairs. The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) and the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) submitted separate public comments. They are both attributed, below, to the NCUC. The NCSG statement was drafted with participation of members of both the NCUC and NPOC and was endorsed by the policy committee of the NCSG, which consists  of representatives of both constituencies. The NCUC and NPOC statements  were drafted by and endorsed by the appropriate committees of each constituency.

 Although similar in content (as are to each other the three statements submitted by members of the Commercial Stakeholders Group) there are differences between the three noncommercial comments that should be acknowledged and properly respected as we begin the process of consolidation. I realize that it is rare for the three non-commercial entities to all submit comments on a topic yet when there are differences in approach, such as here, it does happen. 

 I would respectfully request that your letter be corrected and re-sent. I certainly don't want the Chairs or one of us to skip over a full set of comments on the mistaken belief that the NCUC sent the same set of comments to the list in different forms when, in fact, that is not the case. One of the comments attributed to the NCUC is actually a submission by the NCSG.

 Thanks,

 Ed Morris

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 24, 2015, at 5:03 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org> wrote:

   For your information.

 Best regards,

 Marika

 From: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
Date: Thursday 24 December 2015 at 10:55
To: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>, Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>
Cc: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
Subject: GNSO review of Third Draft Proposal

   Sending on behalf of James Bladel, GNSO Chair:

 CCWG-ACCT Co-Chairs
   Re: GNSO Review of Third Draft Proposal
 24 DEC 2015

 Dear Mathieu, Thomas, and Leon:

 Earlier this week, 21 Dec 2015, marked the close of the Public Comment period covering the Third CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal. Unfortunately, due to the size and diversity of the organizations that comprise the GNSO, and the compressed time frame, we were unable to develop a unified GNSO response to the 12 Recommendations of the CCWG-Accountability by the close of the comment period.

 Listed below are links to comments and survey responses submitted on behalf of GNSO Stakeholder Groups (SGs) and Constituencies (Cs).  Additional submissions were made on behalf of individuals and organizations that participate in the GNSO from within one or more SG/C.  We have formed a team tasked with analyzing these responses, and using them to draft a harmonized position for consideration by the GNSO Council in a special session convening on 14 January 2016 Presuming this position is successfully adopted, it will be transmitted to you immediately following this session.

 Once again, please accept our gratitude for dedication and patience in shepherding this enormous and historic work unit over the past year.  We are very near the finish line, and look forward to further contributing our thoughts to this document, and the Final CCWG-Accountability Proposal.

 Thank you,

 James Bladel
 GNSO Chair

 Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG):

 Comment - http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/msg00035.html
 Survey Response - http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/msg00034.html

 Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG)
 Comment - http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/msg00084.html

 Intellectual Property Interests Constituency (IPC), Commercial Stakeholder Group

 http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/msg00100.html

   Internet Service Providers Constituency (ISPC), Commercial Stakeholder Group
 Survey Response - http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/msg00046.html

 Commercial and Business Users Constituency (BC), Commercial Stakeholder Group
 http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/msg00064.html

 Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC), Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group
 Comment - http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/msg00069.html
 Survey Response - http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/msg00076.html

 Non-Profit Organizations Constituency (NPOC), Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group
 Survey Response - http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/msg00051.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20151226/b8dc697b/attachment.html>