[council] Proposed amendments to CCWG-IG motion

Mon Aug 14 20:46:19 UTC 2017

Hi all,

The changes proposed by Rafik materially change the motion and I’m unable to accept them as friendly amendments.

Following many months of discussion on this topic, including during the CCWG-IG F2F meeting in Johannesburg, it has become clear that the CCWG-IG does not fit the CCWG model that was the formal output of a cross-community working group. My understanding is that the reps from ccNSO and ALAC have also reached this conclusion.

The purpose of the proposed motion is to:

1.      Signal that the GNSO intends to withdraw as a chartering organization because the CCWG-IG does not fit the formal CCWG model.
2.      Signal that the GNSO respects the work of the CCWG on CCWGs and we support the official model of CCWGs.
3.      Signal that the GNSO respects the work of the CCWG-IG, even while we recognize it does not fit the CCWG model.
4.      Signal that the GNSO intends to work with the other CCWG-IG chartering organizations to identify a replacement model so the work can continue uninterrupted.
5.      Set a reasonable deadline by which the GNSO will withdraw as a chartering organization, with the expectation that the current chartering organizations will work together to develop a replacement by that date.

The changes proposed by Rafik in #4 do not sync with the purpose of the motion.

As discussed during our last GNSO Council call, in response to Avri’s suggestion that we move the target date/deadline from ICANN 60 to ICANN 61, I would accept the date shift as a friendly amendment. We agreed that the CCWG-IG reps would need to conduct intercessional work and also likely need to meet face-to-face to establish a replacement structure and I think that ICANN 61 is still a reasonable date.

In my opinion, it is the responsibility of the GNSO Council to set clear expectations and to reinforce that we believe a CCWG must fit the model the community has agreed to. Let me also say that I don’t believe the change of model or structure needs to be overly dramatic. Just change the name from Cross Community Working Group (which has an explicit definition) to Cross Community Discussion Group or Cross Community Engagement Group. Even if additional work is required, it seems 7 months ought to be plenty of time.

So, to reiterate, I would be open to accepting the date shift from ICANN 60 to ICANN 61, but the other proposed changes will not support the intent of the motion.

Regards,

Keith

From: council-bounces at gnso.icann.org [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 3:38 PM
To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>; council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] Proposed amendments to CCWG-IG motion

Stephanie and Colleagues –

Speaking as a Registrar rep and Seconder of the motion, I would not see these changes as friendly amendments as friendly.  I will wait for Keith to respond as well.

And my concerns go beyond Resolved 4.  For example, the proposed amendments would defer/delay a decision from ICANN60 to ICANN61 (Resolved 3 and 5), as well as change the decision to a conditional (Resolved 5, 6 and 7).  Of all the proposed changes, I believe Resolved 7 is the least impactful (but Rafik may see this as dependent upon the other proposed amendments).

Thank you,

J.

From: <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>
Date: Monday, August 14, 2017 at 14:26
To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [council] Proposed amendments to CCWG-IG motion

Does removing item 4 help?  I have not been involved, but I fear that the deadline will be struck before Rafik is online to respond.

Stephanie

On 2017-08-14 10:37, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:

   Rafik

   This topic has been discussed on multiple occasions at the GNSO Council. Council’s issues with the CCWG have been made very clear. Asking that the motion be modified as you’re suggesting with the addition of the new #4 seems to completely ignore the various exchanges we’ve had on this topic over the last few months. Personally I could not support the motion with this additional language.

   Regards

   Michele

   --

   Mr Michele Neylon

   Blacknight Solutions

   Hosting, Colocation & Domains

   https://www.blacknight.com/

   http://blacknight.blog/

   Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072

   Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090

   Personal blog: https://michele.blog/

   Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/

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

   Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty

   Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

   From: <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org><mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com><mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
   Date: Monday 14 August 2017 at 14:45
   To: Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org><mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
   Subject: [council] Proposed amendments to CCWG-IG motion

   Hi all,

   please find attached a document with proposed amendments to the CCWG-IG motion that was deferred in the last council call.

   I hope they can be accepted as friendly.

   Best,

   Rafik

   _______________________________________________
   council mailing list
   council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
   https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20170814/615e8aed/attachment.html>