James,
  
 Thanks for this. You are certainly correct about the importance of this motion and its potential danger to the interest of the NCSG and our members. That's why I brought it to the attention of the NCSG PC within an hour of it being made by IPC Councillor Paul McGrady.
  
 ?Councillor McGrady's initial proposal called for a drafting team with specific qualifications that could likely only be met by qualified attorney's. This coupled with his proposal for an open call would have been devastating tho the NCSG and the interests of our Members. The current Motion calls for a drafting team composed of "GNSO community members" with selection and composition to be determined. This is a substantial improvement and we all owe ICANN staff and the GNSO Council leadership team  credit for helping to moderate the initial IPC proposal. 
  
 It is absolutely imperative that the composition of this drafting team be truly reflective of and modelled on the composition of the GNSO Council. A completely open call, with the team open to anyone who wants to join, is not in the interest of the NCSG or our members. We would be completely outmanned, both in numbers and expertise, by other groups. You can expect our colleagues in the commercial community to argue for a completely open team and, failing that, selection by Constituency. We need to stay united and strong and demand that the teams composition reflect the stakeholder group structure of the GNSO. We need parity on this team. There are a number of ways to do this and I look forward to discussing how best to achieve that goal. 
  
 I do want to emphasise, however, that drafting team composition should not and can not be limited to those with CCWG or CWG  experience. Although important, general knowledge of the GNSO itself, structure, history and policies, may be even more important. It would be best to select a team with a variety of competencies, both CCWG and general GNSO related, to ensure an optimal outcome. 
  
 I look forward to discussing this matter with everyone at the NCSG Policy Committee meeting next Tuesday with a view to achieving an optimal outcome for the members of the NCSG during GNSO Council deliberations on Thursday. 
  
 Kind Regards, 
  
 Ed Morris 
  
  
  

 From: "James Gannon" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 7:14 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Council Item for Disussion   
 Hi All,
 As we know there are many changes coming for the role of the GNSO with our new accountability powers, I want to call out the following item on the council agenda for Helsinki
  	Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE - Approval to Form a Drafting Team to Develop an Implementation Plan for New and Additional GNSO Powers and Obligations under the Revised ICANN Bylaws (15 minutes) 
 I have to say that I am concerned about this, this is a critical item for the GNSO and will set its strategic view and position for the next 5-7 years most likely, I don't fee very comfortable with this being done in a potentially top down manner by council, I feel that this should be developed in a bottom up manner by the SGs and C's first. 
  
 I  would be interested in others  thoughts so that we can guide the PC on a position on this 
  
  
 James