Hi again,

Following up on this. I just sent a slightly modified version of our suggested amendments to the Council list (attached). The only difference is that in the whereas 3 clause of the motion, we haven’t identified who submitted the minority report.

Farzi, Matt, Ed and I have been working among ourselves on this for some time now, but more recently have been communicating our intent to colleagues in the Contracted Parties House and Commercial Stakeholder Group. Barring any surprises, I believe we have broad acceptance from everybody across the GNSO on these changes, and I don’t expect the amendments to be challenged.

As discussed during yesterday’s NCSG call, we also need to be vigilante during the upcoming public comment period on this. For the time being, I look forward to trying to get the Drafting Team recommendations accepted by the GNSO Council tomorrow.

Gratitude to everyone who helped get us here. I’m not just talking about the Drafting Team members, but mainly our members who put so much effort and spent so much time on the CWG IANA Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability WS1 to help get us where we are today.

Thanks again.

Amr





> On Nov 30, 2016, at 8:27 PM, hfaiedh ines <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> + 1
> 
> 2016-11-30 12:01 GMT-05:00 avri doria <[log in to unmask]>:
> +1
> 
> 
> On 30-Nov-16 09:56, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> > Strongly support these modifications.
> > Thanks for being on top of this, Ed, Farzy, Matt and Amr
> >
> > Dr. Milton L Mueller
> > Professor, School of Public Policy
> > Georgia Institute of Technology
> > Internet Governance Project
> > http://internetgovernance.org/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> >> Of Amr Elsadr
> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 1:40 PM
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Amendment on Motion to Accept the Recommendations of the
> >> GNSO Bylaws Drafting Team (DT)
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> As discussed on today’s monthly policy call, I’ve attached the amendments
> >> that Farzaneh Badii, Matthew Shears, Edward Morris and I have
> >> recommended. It is our hope that, through these very lightweight changes,
> >> the Council will vote on a factually correct motion that does not advocate one
> >> side over another. It is also important to point out that regardless of the
> >> language of the motion, we very much support the DT recommendations,
> >> and hope the GNSO Council will accept them.
> >>
> >> For context on this, please see agenda item 4 on the GNSO Council’s meeting
> >> agenda
> >> (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+1+Dec
> >> ember+2016).
> >>
> >> I’d be happy to answer any questions on this.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> Amr
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>