[council] RE: Letter and updated response to the CCWG-Accountability

[Drazek, Keith]

Hi all,

Upon further review of the position summary table, the RySG request one edit, as follows:

Footnote 2 (Rec #11) does not seem to accurately and completely capture the RySG position.  That footnote states that “the Registries SG and ISPCP Constituency did not object expressly but highlighted significant concerns about the implications of such a change.”  However, the RySG comments set out three conditions that, if not met, “the RySG would be unlikely to support a proposal wherein consideration of GAC advice would require a 2/3 for rejection.”  While the footnote is not inaccurate, it’s not complete.

The RySG suggests the following revision to footnote 2:

“IPC, NCSG and the Registrars SG expressly objected to changing and specifying the threshold for Board action; the Registries SG and ISPCP Constituency did not object expressly but highlighted significant concerns about the implications of such a change.  The Registries SG stated it was unlikely to support the 2/3 threshold for Board action unless three additional requirements (provision of a rationale, consistency with ICANN bylaws and within GAC scope, and defined consensus) applied to such GAC Advice.  While BC and NPOC supported the change, both nevertheless also noted concerns over the implications, with the BC’s support expressly conditioned upon certain qualifications being made to the proposal.”

Thank you!

Regards,
Keith

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 9:59 AM
To: council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: [council] Letter and updated response to the CCWG-Accountability

Dear Councilors,

Please find attached a draft letter and attachment, intended to be sent by James, Donna and Heather on behalf of the Council to the CCWG-Accountability. As agreed on the Council call of 14 January, a small group of Councilors (James, Paul and Ed) worked with staff to draft a letter with an updated Council response to each of the recommendations in the CCWG-Accountability’s Third Draft Proposal.

The updated response (attached in both redlined and clean format) is an attempt to capture all the suggestions and points of agreement that were reached during the 14 January call. Thanks to James, Ed and Paul, it would seem that the most difficult and contentious of the issues brought up on that call may be addressed by the new language that you will see in the document.

We hope that this updated response and the proposed letter achieves the Council’s objectives and captures its views as expressed in the discussions to date.

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20160120/0c6bcecc/attachment.html>