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

WUKnoben wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
Thu Jan 14 08:35:41 UTC 2016


All,
at first my thanks to the team who undertook this effort of evaluation. As I see there are 5 levels of support suggested:
  a.. General Support 
  b.. General Support with qualifications 
  c.. General Support with (possibly divergent) Conditions 
  d.. Limited Support with some opposition 
  e.. No support
Questions for understanding:
  a.. did I put it in the right row (up – down)? 
  b.. would you explain the differences? 
  c.. what does “general support” mean? It looks like a restriction/limitation if it doesn’t mean “full support”. Why not just saying “support”?
I’m inclined to join Keith’s concerns re the rating for rec #11.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich



From: Drazek, Keith 
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 7:56 AM
To: James M. Bladel ; egmorris1 at toast.net ; Johan Helsingius ; Amr Elsadr ; Marika Konings 
Cc: WUKnoben ; GNSO Council List 
Subject: RE: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report

James, thanks for this clear and concise explanation. I agree with your assessment on process.

 

I would like to raise a question about the “No Support” for Recommendation 11 in our draft communication. I understand there is opposition to the 2/3 threshold increase, but Recommendation 11 is broader than that…it also incorporates the threshold definition of GAC consensus advice (no formal opposition) into the bylaws, which is something very positive for all of us in the GNSO. Do we really want to signal “no support” for the entire recommendation, or should we perhaps make it “limited support with some opposition?”  I’m a bit concerned that we’d be sending an inaccurate signal to the CCWG if it was left as simply “no support.”  

 

For the record, the RySG understands that Recommendation 11 is a package and we suggested new provisions if the 2/3 language were to remain. We would be happy to see the 2/3 threshold reversed, but we did not signal “no support” on Rec-11 in our written comments to the CCWG.

 

Happy to discuss further on the upcoming Council call.

 

Regards,

Keith

 

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:54 PM
To: egmorris1 at toast.net; Johan Helsingius; Amr Elsadr; Marika Konings
Cc: WUKnoben; GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report

 

Colleagues:

 

The discussion around this has been extremely valuable, and big thanks for all of those who weighed in.  I apologize for taking so long to weigh in, but I was watching some of the keynote speeches here at NamesCon (include Paul’s.  Nice job!).  In any event, my thoughts are below.

 

 

What is the purpose of tomorrow’s call?

The GNSO Council will send its unified position on the CCWG-Accountability recommendations to the co-chairs of the CCWG.  We will achieve this by reviewing, discussing and approving the Consolidated document that was prepared by the SubTeam.

 

Should we do this now, or wait for the final CCWG Recommendations?

It seems increasingly likely that there will be a new set of modified CCWG Recommendations in the near future.  However, if we want to help shape the next report to ensure it reflects the views of the GNSO Community, we need to comment on this set of Recommendations now.  Doing so will also provide guidance & support to the GNSO members of the CCWG-ACCT in their work to drive the best outcomes.

 

Are we voting, or drafting a letter, or what?

This is an open question for tomorrow’s call.  Some have indicated a preference for a less formal (letter) response, similar to what we’ve seen from the ccNSO.  Others have noted that something this important would benefit from an itemized expression of support/non-support.  The CCWG co-chairs, and the CCWG charter, appear to favor the latter, and certainly a formal vote will be required for the Final Recommendations.  My hope is that we are able to resolve this tomorrow, but if necessary we can vote on whether or not we need to vote (!).

 

If we do vote, then what is the vote about? What are we voting on? How will this go down?

If we proceed with a vote, then the Councilors will be asked whether or not they agree with the Subteam’s analysis & consolidation of the public comments filed by the SGs and CS.  In other words, we will be voting on the  —language— of the response, NOT the response itself.  Example:  If the Subteam reports that the GNSO opposes a recommendation, a “Yes” vote will agree with that statement of GNSO opposition, not the recommendation itself.  Hopefully this will become clearer tomorrow as we walk through the document.

 

What if we can’t agree?

If we cannot reach consensus (either via discussion or voting) on the GNSO response to any recommendation, then we will refer the CCWG Co-Chairs back to the individual comments filed by the SGs and Cs.  I believe there are a few (2-3) areas in the report where this may be the case.  But generally speaking, the Subteam found a great deal of overlap in SG/C positions, and when those comments included qualifiers or conditions, those were usually not in conflict. 

 

 

 

From: <owner-council at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>
Reply-To: "egmorris1 at toast.net" <egmorris1 at toast.net>
Date: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 8:40 
To: Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
Cc: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report

 

Hi Marika,

 

I'm very appreciative of your efforts to make us aware of the approach the CCNSO took. We need all the input we can get. Now if you could do the same for the GAC I think we all would be double appreciative! (we're still waiting for some smoke signals from our government colleagues).

 

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I definitely think we should be taking an up and down vote on each of the recommendations. I referenced the sub-teams work only to suggest that format - response by recommendation - be used going forward. Thanks for letting me know that I wasn't clear and giving me the chance to clear up any misunderstanding.

 

Ed

 

 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Marika Konings" <marika.konings at icann.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 4:27 PM
To: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net>, "Johan Helsingius" <julf at julf.com>, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>, "GNSO Council List" <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report 

 

Thanks, Ed. I didn’t mean to imply that the ccNSO response was the way to go, I thought it just might be of interest to see how other chartering organisations in addition to the ALAC approached it.

 

As a point of clarification, are you suggesting that an up / down vote would be taken on the response provided by the sub-team, not necessarily the recommendations themselves? I thought you were suggesting the latter in your initial email, but your last paragraph in this section makes me think you are suggesting the former?

 

Best regards,

 

Marika

 

From: <owner-council at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>
Reply-To: Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>
Date: Wednesday 13 January 2016 at 17:16
To: Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
Cc: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report

 

Hi Marika,

 

Thanks for this. That certainly is an approach we could take but I question it's overall utility to those of us in the CCWG who are attempting to put together a proposal all of the chartering organisations can support.

 

I would refer everyone to the CCWG Charter ( ), specifically:

 

---

 

SO and AC support for the Draft Proposal(s)
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 decide whether to adopt the recommendations contained in it. The chairs of the chartering organizations shall notify the co-chairs of the WG of the result of the deliberations as soon as feasible.
 
Supplemental Draft Proposal
In the event that one or more of the participating SO’s or AC’s do(es) not adopt one or more of the recommendation(s) contained in the Draft Proposal(s), the Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability shall be notified accordingly. This notification shall include at a minimum the reasons for the lack of support and a suggested alternative that would be acceptable, if any. The CCWG-Accountability may, at its discretion, reconsider, post for public comments and/or submit to the chartering organizations a Supplemental Draft Proposal, which takes into accounting the concerns raised.
 
Following submission of the Supplemental Draft Proposal, the chartering organizations shall discuss and decide in accordance with its own rules and procedures whether to adopt the recommendations contained in the Supplemental Draft Proposal. The Chairs of the chartering organizations shall notify the Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability of the result of the deliberations as soon as feasible.

 

 

---

 

With the exception of its referral to the CWG requirements, I don't find the CCNSO response to be particularly helpful. Provisional support of the "direction of travel" doesn't tell the CCWG if we need to change some specifics of any of our recommendations. If the CCNSO is prepared to support all the recommendations save those related to the CWG they should say so. What we're trying to avoid is a situation where only on the final vote of approval / disapproval do we become aware of a Chartering organisations problems with a specific recommendation. As I understand things, that actually is the purpose of the special attention being paid to the Chartering organisations in this round of public comments. Although there are some tweaks that probably should be made,  I do largely support the work of the Council sub-team and the result of their efforts and hope that is the basis of our discussion and response.

 

Best,

 

Ed

 

 

 

 

 

 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Marika Konings" <marika.konings at icann.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 3:39 PM
To: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net>, "Johan Helsingius" <julf at julf.com>, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>, "GNSO Council List" <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report 

 

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> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>
Reply-To: Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>
Date: Wednesday 13 January 2016 at 15:42
To: Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
Cc: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>, GNSO Council List <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>
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:07 PM
To: "Johan Helsingius" <julf at julf.com>
Cc: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>, "GNSO Council List" <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> 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/20160114/bc73c800/attachment.html>


More information about the council mailing list