[council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT

[WUKnoben]

The ISPCP constituency in principle agrees to the letter, also with the additional clarification Phil is suggesting.
Regarding the attachment we ‘d like to suggest the edits inserted:

Rec#5: bringing the bullet points in a rather qualified order from higher to lower level of support within the GNSO.
These changes would make no substantive change to the points that people have requested GNSO make, but clarify the level of support that they
have. 
Rec#11: There are concerns with the first statement: “The GNSO overall does not support this recommendation.” This should be deleted.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich



From: Phil Corwin 
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 4:08 PM
To: council at gnso.icann.org 
Subject: [council] Proposed Edit to Council Letter to CCWG-ACCT

Fellow Councilors:

 

I want to suggest a potential edit to our Council letter.

 

Right now it reads:

We expect that the CCWG-Accountability develop a Supplemental Proposal based on the input from its Chartering Organizations and the public, the GNSO Council expects also that it and other Chartering Organizations, as well as the larger community, will have an adequate opportunity to review and comment on the Proposal in a timely fashion.

 

My suggested revision would have it read as follows:

We expect that the CCWG-Accountability develop a Supplemental Proposal based on the input from its Chartering Organizations and the public, the GNSO Council expects also that it and other Chartering Organizations, reflecting the larger community, will have an adequate opportunity to review and comment on the Supplemental Proposal in a timely fashion. (changes in Bold)

 

As the sentence notes via its reference “and the public”, we have already had a public comment period on the Third Proposal. The draft language could be read to suggest that we favor another round of public comment on the anticipated Supplemental Proposal, which could prevent NTIA from receiving the Proposal in the timely manner required (delivery by mid-to-late February) that provides a substantial likelihood of completing the transition in 2016. 

 

The proposed revision emphasizes that the Chartering organizations, including the GNSO, are the proper entities to submit any additional comments on the Supplemental Proposal and can transmit the views of their constituents.

 

I realize that some Councilors may wish to have the Supplemental Proposal subject to another round of public comment. If there is a consensus for that position then I would suggest that any such comment period be limited in duration to reflect the fact that the narrow subject of such comments would be those changes made from the Third draft in response to the recent comment period.

 

In any event, I believe our letter should be more clear than the present draft regarding the Council’s position in regard to whether an additional round of public – as opposed to Chartering Organization – comment is desired on the Supplemental Proposal we expect to see shortly.

 

Best to all,

Philip

 

 

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

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20160121/bc7601fe/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CLEAN - CCWG Sub-Team Review of Recommendations - updated & consolidated 20 Jan_WUKedit.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 44238 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20160121/bc7601fe/CLEAN-CCWGSub-TeamReviewofRecommendations-updatedconsolidated20Jan_WUKedit.docx>