[council] Proposed letter to the Drafting Team

Mon May 23 16:22:37 UTC 2016

Paul -

If I’m understanding correctly, we could modify this sentence:

"We ask you to carefully review each of these comments and give them serious consideration.”

To something like:

"We ask you to carefully review each of these comments, and any other submissions from members of the broader GNSO Community, and give them serious consideration."

Thanks-

J.

From: Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com>>
Date: Monday, May 23, 2016 at 11:18
To: Keith Drazek <kdrazek at verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>
Cc: James Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [council] Proposed letter to the Drafting Team

Likewise, excluding members of the GNSO community could be viewed as elevating comments from constituent bodies of the GNSO above actual users of ICANN services within the GNSO. To solve the problem, how about let's not provide links, just tell them they need to take comments made by GNSO members seriously?

Sent from my iPhone

On May 23, 2016, at 12:04 PM, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at Verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>> wrote:

Fully agree with James here.

Regards,
Keith

From:owner-council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 10:57 AM
To: Paul McGrady; 'Marika Konings'; council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] Proposed letter to the Drafting Team

Hi Paul -

Off the cuff, I have some concerns about Council going further than official positions by the SGs/Cs.  Most individuals or organizations have some affiliation with the GNSO, and it would be difficult to make a clear distinction.  The risks of us referencing one comment, while leaving out one from an equivalent person or group (even if due to error) could be seen as Council endorsement.

Also, consider the scenario where there are significant differences between the position of a commenter versus their respective SG/C.   If the RrSG comments in favor of chocolate ice cream, but comments from GoDaddy favor vanilla, then by including both the Council could be perceived as undermining the consensus-building processes within that SG/C.  In this case, the IPC & NTIA comments are probably aligned, but absent an analysis from Staff, we should be cautious about inserting ourselves in to any position differences.

I understand your intention to present a list that is as comprehensive as possible, but I’m concerned that there’s no way to do so in a fair an equitable manner, and especially without creating precedent for future comments. But I’d welcome thoughts from other Councilors on this point.

Thanks—

J.

From: Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com>>
Date: Monday, May 23, 2016 at 8:15
To: 'Marika Konings' <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>, James Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
Subject: RE: [council] Proposed letter to the Drafting Team

Thanks Marika.  I think we have to go more granular than just the C’, SG’s etc.  For example, INTA put in public comments.  They are a member of the IPC and a therefore a member of the GNSO community.

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 Marika Konings
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 7:59 AM
To: James M. Bladel; Paul McGrady; council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] Proposed letter to the Drafting Team

I believe Bruce just answered question #1. With regards to bullet 3:

  *   IPC - http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-new-bylaws-21apr16/msg00028.html
  *   NCSG - http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-new-bylaws-21apr16/msg00022.html
  *   BC - http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-new-bylaws-21apr16/msg00024.html
  *   ISPCP - http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-new-bylaws-21apr16/msg00012.html
  *   RySG - http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-new-bylaws-21apr16/msg00011.html
Best regards,

Marika

Marika Konings
Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>

Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers>.

From: <owner-council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>
Date: Sunday 22 May 2016 at 13:35
To: Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com>>, "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] Proposed letter to the Drafting Team

Hi Paul -

Thanks for kicking this off.  Generally, I’m good with this letter.  A few questions/comments:

  *   Given the compressed timeline, can we ask Staff to confirm whether or not the Drafting Team will have an opportunity to amend the proposed bylaws before submitting to the Board?  I’m assuming they will, but…
  *   Should we also cc: the Board and/or CCWG Co-Chairs? (hedge)
  *   With the Comment Period now closed, could we task someone from Policy Staff to assist Paul in gathering links to GNSO comments?
  *   The Board is meeting this week to consider the draft bylaws.  It is therefore imperative that we move quickly to get this sent.  Councilors, please send edits/comments/concerns by EOD (Pacific) Monday to ensure that this is posted overnight Tuesday.
Thanks again—

J.

From: <owner-council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com>>
Date: Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 6:01
To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
Subject: [council] Proposed letter to the Drafting Team

Hi all,

On our last call, I volunteered t draft a short letter from James to the Bylaws Drafting Team.  Here is the proposed body of that letter to be kicked around the Council list:

________

Dear Bylaws Drafting Team:

The GNSO Council thanks you for your efforts in attempting to distill the instructions found in the CCWG-Accountability Report into a revised version of ICANN’s Bylaws.  We note that the draft Bylaws have generated significant public comment from members of the GNSO community.  These include:

[Paul McGrady to pull these links out of the public comment after it closes]

We ask you to carefully review each of these comments and give them serious consideration.  It is important that the revised Bylaws remain faithful to the CCWG-Accountability Report on which we, as a Council, were called upon to vote in Marrakech.  We are fully at your disposal should you wish to consult us on any issue raised in the comments generated by the GNSO community.

Kind regards,
James Bladel

Best,
Paul
policy at paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20160523/c1bd83a3/attachment.html>