[council] Proposed amendments to CCWG-IG motion

Mon Aug 14 20:59:30 UTC 2017

Hi Keith and all,

Trying to respond to several comments in this thread and clarify the intent
behind the,:

1/ with regard to the delay from ICANN60 to ICANN61, we discussed that
during the call and mentioned, that ICANN60 is a short deadline for the
CCWG-IG to deliver a proposal for the new structure and respond to council
concerns.
2/ #4 was added to list clearly the concerns from the council, yes there
was a lot of discussions on that matter in different times but we didn't
formalize that. if #4 is a problem, we can drop it.
3/ regarding the conditional, it was also raised that we need a clear
transition from the CCWG model to the new model proposed by the group and
approved by chartering organizations. if GNSO withdraws as CO as stated in
the original motion, there is no indication that will rejoin the new
structure. the intent of the amendment is to give some transitional time
and avoid the automatic withdrawal.

@Keith I see that we have at least an agreement to shift the deadline to
ICANN61 and I am fine with dropping #4.

Best,

Rafik

2017-08-15 5:46 GMT+09:00 Drazek, Keith via council <council at gnso.icann.org>
:

> 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> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> *Date: *Monday, August 14, 2017 at 14:26
> *To: *GNSO Council List <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 <+353%2059%20918%203072>
>
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 <+353%2059%20918%203090>
>
> 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> <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>
> on behalf of Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Monday 14 August 2017 at 14:45
> *To: *Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org> <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
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> 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/20170815/61df335b/attachment.html>