[council] RE: Action items from GNSO Council call on 17 January regarding the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal

Fri Jan 15 19:53:58 UTC 2016

Thanks for spotting this, Phil, and apologies for the error (for which I can’t even blame time zone issues :)! Rest assured that Glen has got it right in the minutes, which I suppose is the real record of proceedings ….

Cheers
Mary

From: Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>>
Date: Friday, January 15, 2016 at 23:45
To: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady at winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady at winston.com>>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-Systems.net<mailto:vgreimann at key-Systems.net>>, "egmorris1 at toast.net<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>" <egmorris1 at toast.net<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>, "council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>" <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
Subject: RE: [council] RE: Action items from GNSO Council call on 17 January regarding the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal

It’s quite interesting that we are discussing “Action items from GNSO Council call on 17 January”, as it is two days in the future ;-)

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D.
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 9:20 AM
To: James M. Bladel; Volker Greimann; egmorris1 at toast.net<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>; WUKnoben; Mary Wong; council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: RE: [council] RE: Action items from GNSO Council call on 17 January regarding the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal

Thanks James!

Best,
Paul

From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 8:15 AM
To: Volker Greimann; McGrady, Paul D.; egmorris1 at toast.net<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>; WUKnoben; Mary Wong; council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] RE: Action items from GNSO Council call on 17 January regarding the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal

Hi folks -

Just getting caught up after my journey home from Las Vegas, and getting up to speed on this thread.  I appreciate everyone’s concerns,  but I would caution that Staff and I (Mary drew the short straw, I think) are still working to develop a rough draft, so most of this is premature.

Until we have something fleshed out, it would be helpful if folks could take a step back from claiming that certain views weren’t captured or were intentionally omitted. There will be ample opportunities for Council to review & offer edits before -anything– is posted to the CCWG on behalf of the GNSO, and we’ve specifically tagged Paul & Ed to review the response to Recommendation #9 to make sure I got it right.

Thanks—

J.

From: <owner-council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-Systems.net<mailto:vgreimann at key-Systems.net>>
Date: Friday, January 15, 2016 at 5:59
To: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady at winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady at winston.com>>, "egmorris1 at toast.net<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>" <egmorris1 at toast.net<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [council] RE: Action items from GNSO Council call on 17 January regarding the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal

Hi Paul,

I think your language leaves something to be desired. Even if one or two points you want to raise were not to be reflected in the letter, this would hardly be "censorship". A position of the GNSO should first and foremost reflect the positions we can all agree on. If just one or two SGs have a certain view, that is their view (to be addressed in their individual comments) but not a view held by the GNSO as a whole. If included at all, it would be under the label of "The GNSO was unable to come to a unified consensus position on the following issues:" and I do not think that would help our case.

Let's all take a breath of fresh air and work constructively on achieving a positive result that reflects the overall consensus of the council and the GNSO.

Best,

Volker

Am 15.01.2016 um 14:25 schrieb McGrady, Paul D.:
Thanks Ed.  I guess we will just have to wait and see if the IPC position is censored out of Recommendation 9 or not.  If it is, I suppose that the IPC will just have to find other avenues to make sure that the CCWG hears its voice.  However, the IPC would prefer that the Council give the IPC the same status as other C’s and SG’s whose positions were allowed to be captured in the comments to Recommendation 9.

Best,
Paul

From: Edward Morris [mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 7:18 AM
To: WUKnoben; Mary Wong; council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>; McGrady, Paul D.
Subject: RE: [council] RE: Action items from GNSO Council call on 17 January regarding the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal

Hi everybody,

I'd suggest we allow James to develop the letter as he proposed to do on the call yesterday.

I think Wolf-Ulrich captures the essence of what James will be doing but in that he will be basing it upon the SG/C comments he does capture part of Paul's concern. I disagree with Paul, though, if he means every comment made by every GNSO C/SG should be included in the letter. If we were to do so the letter would become a book and useless for the CCWG. Synthesis does require some editorial judgement. There were many NCSG/NPOC/NCUC comments that were not captured during the sub-team's work. If the IPC is to insist all of their comments be captured I would be forced to insist all NCSG/NPOC/NCUC comments be captured in the letter as well. I don't want to do that.

Let's give James a shot at developing a letter we can all support. It may prove to be an impossible task but he certainly has my full faith and confidence as he tries to do so.

Best,

Ed

________________________________
From: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady at winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady at winston.com>>
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 11:54 AM
To: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>>, "Mary Wong" <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>, "council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>" <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
Subject: RE: [council] RE: Action items from GNSO Council call on 17 January regarding the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal

Hi Wolf-Ulrich,

I thought quite the opposite coming out of the call that there was broad agreement that the comments are the important part of our feedback and should be included in James’ letter.  You raise a much broader issue than just whether or not the IPC will be edited out of the Council’s comments on Recommendation 9 when everyone else was included (James, can I have a decision on this sooner rather than later?  If the IPC is to be excluded, I need to figure out how to explain the Council’s decision to include some voices but not others.  Note, I’m not asking for anything special here, just that what we submit include content from the IPC which was included in our public comment but excluded by whomever had that section in the subteam – in other words, a drafting error, the correction of which was supposed to be the subject of yesterday’s call).

All, regarding Wolf-Ulrich’s more general position, did anyone else on the call come away with the idea that the various positions of the C’s and SG’s would not be included in James’ letter?  I left the call with a 180 degree different take away after having several verbal and chat affirmations from several folks (including James) that the comments would make their way into the letter and the letter would not just be category descriptions (Broad, Limited, None, etc.) which would not be help to the CCWG as a feedback mechanism.  If we aren’t sticking to what we agreed to on the call yesterday, I need to know that as soon as possible too, but really hope we didn’t through 2 hours out the window.

Best to all,
Paul

From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 1:33 AM
To: McGrady, Paul D.; Mary Wong; council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] RE: Action items from GNSO Council call on 17 January regarding the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal

My understanding is the council in providing its answer to the CCWG shouldn’t be repetitive and not just list and combine the SG/C comments made during the public comment period. We all know that compromises are needed in order to make progress towards an acceptable text. In this respect our constituency refrains to go into more details with the exception of rec. 11.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

From: McGrady, Paul D.<mailto:PMcGrady at winston.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 5:24 PM
To: Mary Wong<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org> ; council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: [council] RE: Action items from GNSO Council call on 17 January regarding the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal

Thanks Mary.

Hopefully, we didn’t miss our window to be heard.  We thought the purpose of today’s call was to make sure the Subgroup captured all the comments and not that there was a pre-call deadline to review and suggest edits in the 48 hours or so given between draft and call.  I also hope that other c’s and SG’s aren’t making saliency decisions for each others’ comments.   In the sections I drafted, I tried to be as inclusive as possible, even if I didn’t share the concern.  I hope that was the right approach.

Best,
Paul

From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong at icann.org]
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 9:18 AM
To: McGrady, Paul D.; council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: Action items from GNSO Council call on 17 January regarding the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal

Hi Paul and everyone,

The staff understanding was that what was, and is to be, included in the final document that lays out the Council’s response will basically be those SG/C comments that are considered to be most salient to the specific point being made (e.g. a GNSO condition). We therefore assumed that any additions of specific SG/C comments at this point would first go through a review process with James and possibly the Sub Team (as they were the ones that compiled the extract of SG/C comments). Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that none of these is either a staff position or view on what ought or ought not to be included or added to the document!

Thanks and cheers
Mary

Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>
Telephone: +1-603-5744889

From: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady at winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady at winston.com>>
Date: Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 22:20
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>, "council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>" <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
Subject: RE: Action items from GNSO Council call on 17 January regarding the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal

Thanks Mary.  Just a quick question on Rec 9.  Why would there need to be a review of whether or not to include the IPC comments?  Everyone else’s comments were included, so I don’t know why the IPCs would be subject to a review to see if they would be included.  Thanks for your thoughts.

Best,
Paul

From:owner-council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 8:17 AM
To: council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: [council] Action items from GNSO Council call on 17 January regarding the CCWG-Accountability Third Draft Proposal

Dear all,

Here are the notes that staff took in relation to action items stemming from the Special GNSO Council meeting that just concluded. Please let us know if we have missed or mischaracterized anything.

ACTION ITEMS:

  *   Letter explaining GNSO Council response - James to prepare draft for Council consideration before 21 January, assisted by Keith and Ed
  *   Rec 5, 11 - James to draft additional language along the lines of what was discussed/agreed on the call, assisted by Ed and Paul
  *   Rec 1 - reinsert BC note about strong right of inspection (perhaps with cross-reference in/to Rec 3?)
  *   Rec 2 - change "unanimous support" to "broad support"
  *   Rec 3, 4 - no change
  *   Rec 6 - remove last sentence; add note that certain questions remain to be resolved in WS2
  *   Rec 7 - no change
  *   Rec 8 – further elaboration needed on note about timeliness (including replies and deadlines)
  *   Rec 9 - Review whether IPC comment on AOC section 8(b) and direct constituency participation in review teams should be included; review generally for accuracy
  *   Rec 10 - emphasize need for it to be a community-led effort
  *   Rec 12 - no change
Staff will follow up with James and the various Council volunteers to ensure that you have the updates as soon as practicable.

Thanks and cheers
Mary

Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>
Telephone: +1-603-5744889

The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.

--

Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Volker A. Greimann

- Rechtsabteilung -

Key-Systems GmbH

Im Oberen Werk 1

66386 St. Ingbert

Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901

Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851

Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>

Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com>

Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:

www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>

Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin

Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken

Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP

www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu>

Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.

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

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best regards,

Volker A. Greimann

- legal department -

Key-Systems GmbH

Im Oberen Werk 1

66386 St. Ingbert

Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901

Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851

Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>

Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com>

Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:

www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>

CEO: Alexander Siffrin

Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken

V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP

www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu>

This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.

The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20160115/cfc6af87/attachment.html>