[council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report

[Marika Konings]

You may also be interested to see the approach the ccNSO Council took in their comments on the third draft proposal: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-draft-3-proposal-07jan16-en.pdf.

Best regards,

Marika

From: <owner-council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>
Reply-To: Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>
Date: Wednesday 13 January 2016 at 15:42
To: Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com<mailto:julf at julf.com>>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>
Cc: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report

Hi,

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.

Ed



________________________________
From: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:07 PM
To: "Johan Helsingius" <julf at julf.com<mailto:julf at julf.com>>
Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>>, "GNSO Council List" <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at 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 at julf.com<mailto:julf at 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
>
>
>





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20160113/a01d1a45/attachment.html>