<p dir="ltr">Alan, </p>
<p dir="ltr">Please refer back to Bruce Tonkin email of 17 June where he refers to a review of the rationale to take place at today's meeting. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Jonathan</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 18 Jun 2013 20:08, "Alan Greenberg" <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
Jeff, isn't the rationale already published? I thought that what was at
issue here was the Board's (ie the new GTLD Comm) ratification of
it.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 18/06/2013 11:27 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I do not think this new wording
characterizes the discussion that we had last week. Adding a
footnote to the rationale would not solve any of the issues that were
raised, and in fact would only introduce new (even worse) wrinkles.<br>
<br>
I believe a rewording to make it more in line with what Alan had
suggested is more preferable (Changes in last paragraph):<br>
<br>
Dear Board Governance Committee,<br>
<br>
As you may be aware, the GNSO Council had the opportunity to review the
BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which can be found at
<a href="http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendation-ncsg-16may13-en.pdf" target="_blank">
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendation-ncsg-16may13-en.pdf</a>
(Recommendation) during its regular monthly Council call on June 16,
2013. <br>
<br>
Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of
Reconsideration Requests in general, we have some key concerns with the
implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the
Recommendation. These concerns were expressed during the Council
call and on the Council mailing list and centered around the perceived
potential impact of the Recommendation on the GNSO and more broadly, the
bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model.<br>
<br>
We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to defer the publication of the
rationale of the Reconsideration Request until such time that a more
complete discussion on this matter can take place with the community in
July at the ICANN meeting in Durban.<br><br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
Jonathan Robinson<br>
GNSO Council Chair <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>Jeffrey J. Neuman <br>
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs</b><br><br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> Zahid Jamil
[<a href="mailto:zahid@dndrc.com" target="_blank">
mailto:zahid@dndrc.com</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, June 18, 2013 11:23 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Winterfeldt, Brian; <a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>;
<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> John Berard; Neuman, Jeff;
<a href="mailto:bruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au" target="_blank">bruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [council] Draft Letter to BGC<br>
<br>
Fully support this rewording.<br><br>
Zahid Jamil<br>
Barrister-at-law<br>
Jamil & Jamil<br>
Barristers-at-law<br>
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe<br>
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan<br>
Cell: <a href="tel:%2B923008238230" value="+923008238230" target="_blank">+923008238230</a><br>
Tel: +92 213 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025<br>
Fax: <a href="tel:%2B92%20213%205655026" value="+922135655026" target="_blank">+92 213 5655026</a><br>
<a href="http://www.jamilandjamil.com" target="_blank">www.jamilandjamil.com</a><br><br>
Notice / Disclaimer<br>
This message contains confidential information and its contents are being
communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the
intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this
e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have
received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The
contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil &
Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected
by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use,
amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts
(including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means
whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this
communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil
& Jamil is prohibited.<br><br>
<br>
*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from
Mobilink ***<br>
<hr>
<b>From: </b>"Winterfeldt, Brian"
<<a href="mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com" target="_blank">bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com</a>
> <br>
<b>Sender:
</b><a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">
owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a> <br>
<b>Date: </b>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:17:51 +0000<br>
<b>To:
</b><a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org%3ccouncil@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">
council@gnso.icann.org<council@gnso.icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Cc:
</b><a href="mailto:john@crediblecontext.com%3cjohn@crediblecontext.com" target="_blank">
john@crediblecontext.com<john@crediblecontext.com</a>>;
<a href="mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us%3cJeff.Neuman@neustar.us" target="_blank">
Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us<Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us</a>>;
<a href="mailto:bruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au%3cbruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au" target="_blank">
bruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<bruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>
><br>
<b>Subject: </b>RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC<br>
<br>
Dear all:<br>
<br>
The IPC does not agree that the BGC’s rationale need be thrown out.
As an alternative, you might consider the following language in a
footnote to the rationale, which we would have vetted with the full
Council in due course, but for the intense pace at which this
conversation is unfolding:<br>
<br>
"This analysis is limited to consideration of whether the Board
violated ICANN policy, and specifically the policies set forth in Annex
A, Section 9 of the ICANN Bylaws, which require consultation with the
GNSO Council where a PDP-developed recommendation is not approved by the
Board. It is beyond the scope of this Recommendation to consider
whether, how and when the Board engages the GNSO Council in discussions
following GNSO council statements or other actions outside the PDP
process, and this Recommendation expresses no opinion on such
matters."<br>
<br>
Thank you,<br>
<br>
Brian<br>
<b><u> <br>
</u>Brian J. Winterfeldt <br>
</b>Partner <br>
<u><a href="mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com" target="_blank">bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com</a>
<br>
</u>Steptoe<br>
<hr>
<b>From:</b>
<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.orgOn" target="_blank">
owner-council@gnso.icann.orgOn</a> Behalf OfJonathan Robinson<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:42:15 AM <br>
<b>To:</b>
<a href="mailto:john@crediblecontext.com" target="_blank">john@crediblecontext.com</a>;
'Neuman, Jeff'; 'Bruce Tonkin';
<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC<br>
John,<br>
<br>
Good that the short version makes sense. It’s often the case as you
well know!<br>
<br>
I felt it was clear in the Council meeting of 13/06/2013n that I
understood that a formal letter would need to be sent on behalf of the
Council and that this was what we were discussing.<br>
I haven’t cross-checked against the transcript. However, I did
cover this in my 16/06/2013 summary of the discussion and outcomes and
didn’t receive any objections. <br>
Of course, it doesn’t necessarily require a vote for us to take
action.<br>
<br>
We have an unusually tight deadline in that the BGC is meeting today at
21h00 UTC. If we accept your objection, we do nothing, at least
before the BGC meets. <br>
If we are to do something before the BGC meets, we need to do it
fast. <br>
<br>
Personally, I am OK to put my name next to a draft substantially similar
to what Jeff has outlined below but clearly, need support from the
Council if I am to do so.<br>
Is there a variation on what Jeff has written that you feel you could
support reasonably well in advance of the 21h00 deadline?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
<br>
Jonathan<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b>
<a href="mailto:john@crediblecontext.com" target="_blank">john@crediblecontext.com</a>
[<a href="mailto:john@crediblecontext.com" target="_blank">
mailto:john@crediblecontext.com</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> 17 June 2013 23:25<br>
<b>To:</b> Neuman, Jeff; '<a href="mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info" target="_blank">jrobinson@afilias.info</a>'; 'Bruce Tonkin';
<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC<br>
<br>
Jeff, et. al.,<br>
<br>
Even though short, this note makes more of what happened than I
heard. In as much as it was an open discussion, we didn't hear from
all and we certainly took no votes, either on a proposal, motion or sense
of the Council. <br>
<br>
And I was the guy who coined the term "executivication" of
decision-making at ICANN. I see the problem, but not the basis for
a solution.<br>
<br>
It is true that the Board committee's decision has sparked a bit of a
controversy (the transcript of the meeting shows that), but there is no
basis for any "ask," except perhaps that the full Board draw
its own conclusion as to whether the decision undermines the community as
has been suggested. Asking for this to be on our joint meeting
agenda for Durban is totally within our purview, too.<br>
<br>
I guess that rolls up to being an objection. <br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Berard<br>
<dl>
<dd>--------- Original Message ---------
<dd>Subject: [council] Draft Letter to BGC
<dd>From: "Neuman, Jeff"
<<a href="mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us" target="_blank">Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us</a>
>
<dd>Date: 6/17/13 1:09 pm
<dd>To: "'<a href="mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info" target="_blank">jrobinson@afilias.info</a>'"
<<a href="mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info" target="_blank">jrobinson@afilias.info</a>
>, "'Bruce Tonkin'"
<<a href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au" target="_blank">
Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>>,
"<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">council@gnso.icann.org</a>
"
<<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">council@gnso.icann.org</a>
>
<dd>Bruce,
<dd>
<dd>Thanks for forwarding this note on to the Council. Given the
timing sensitivities, I would propose the Council tomorrow sending a note
like the one below. Any objections?
<dd>
<dd>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
<dd>
<dd>Dear Board Governance Committee,
<dd>
<dd>
As you may be aware, the GNSO Council had the opportunity to review the
BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which can be found at
<a href="http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendation-ncsg-16may13-en.pdf" target="_blank">
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendation-ncsg-16may13-en.pdf</a>
(Recommendation) during its regular monthly Council call on June 16,
2013.
<dd>
<dd>Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of
Reconsideration Requests in general, we have some key concerns with the
implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the
Recommendation. These concerns were expressed during the Council
call and on the Council mailing list and centered around the perceived
potential impact of the Recommendation on the GNSO and more broadly, the
bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model.
<dd>
<dd>
We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to withdraw the arguments used to
support the ultimate rejection of the Reconsideration Request, and
replace the rationale with something more in line with the scope of
Reconsideration Requests as outlined in the ICANN Bylaws. In
addition, we ask that we continue the dialogue on the this particular
matter in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban.<br>
<dd>Sincerely,
<dd>
<dd>Jonathan Robinson
<dd>GNSO Council Chair
<dd>
<dd>
<dd>Jeffrey J. Neuman
<dd>Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
<dd>
<dd>From:
<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">
owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">
mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
<dd>Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 7:02 AM
<dd>To: 'Bruce Tonkin';
<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">council@gnso.icann.org</a>
<dd>Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss
arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... )
<dd>
<dd>Bruce,
<dd>
<dd>Thank-you for flagging this.
<dd>
<dd>We will endeavour to provide you with this.
<dd>
<dd>Jonathan
<dd>
<dd>From: Bruce Tonkin
[<a href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au" target="_blank">
mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>]
<dd>Sent: 16 June 2013 23:52
<dd>To:
<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">council@gnso.icann.org</a>
<dd>Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss
arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... )
<dd>
<dd>Hello Jonathan,
<dd>
<dd>For information- the Board Governance Committee is meeting on Tuesday
18 June at 21:00 UTC time.
<dd>
<dd>A review of the rationale for reconsideration request 13.3 is on the
agenda. Any materials you can provide before then would be
useful.
<dd>
<dd>I am expecting that the new gTLD program committee will then consider
reconsideration request 13.3 at its meeting on 25 June 2013.
<dd>
<dd>Regards,
<dd>Bruce Tonkin
<dd>
</dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd>
</dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dl></blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>