<html>
<body>
I would suggest a simple message from the Chair, on his own behalf,
noting that there is an ongoing discussion of the issue within the GNSO
Council, and as Chair, you would appreciate a deferment of consideration
of the BGC recommendation until there has been an opportunity to discuss
the issue fully within Council and with the Board in Durban.<br><br>
Also, Bruce said the BGC, but isn't it the new gTLD committee that will
be ratifying (and is meeting today and again on the 25th.)<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 18/06/2013 01:18 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Given the discussion we had and
the concerns voiced by many Councillors the least I would like to see is
doing nothing. I am supportive of Jeff's original language as well as his
amended draft. <br><br>
If some of you have issues with the characterization of the discussion, I
propose we can edit the following sentence:<br><br>
Original wording:<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.<br><br>
Proposed language:<br>
Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of
Reconsideration Requests in general, some Councillors have voiced
concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in
support of the Recommendation.<br><br>
By taking out the "we", this cannot be understood as a Council
position.<br><br>
Hope this helps.<br><br>
Thomas<br><br>
Am 18.06.2013 um 18:50 schrieb John Berard
<<a href="mailto:john@crediblecontext.com">john@crediblecontext.com</a>
>:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">It is near 1 pm Eastern on June
18. What does the letter look like now?<br><br>
Berard<br><br>
Sent from my iPhone<br><br>
On Jun 18, 2013, at 10:42 AM, "Jonathan Robinson"
<<a href="mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info">jrobinson@afilias.info</a>
> wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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">john@crediblecontext.com</a>
[<a href="mailto:john@crediblecontext.com" eudora="autourl">
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">jrobinson@afilias.info</a>';
'Bruce Tonkin';
<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">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>
<br>
<dl>
<dd>--------- Original Message --------- <br>
<dd>Subject: [council] Draft Letter to BGC<br>
<dd>From: "Neuman, Jeff"
<<a href="mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us">Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us</a>
><br>
<dd>Date: 6/17/13 1:09 pm<br>
<dd>To:
"'<a href="mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info">jrobinson@afilias.info</a>
'"
<<a href="mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info">jrobinson@afilias.info</a>
>, "'Bruce Tonkin'"
<<a href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au">
Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>>,
"<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a>
"
<<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a>
><br>
<dd>Bruce,<br>
<dd> <br>
<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? <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Dear Board Governance Committee,<br>
<dd> <br>
<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">
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>
<dd> <br>
<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.<br>
<dd> <br>
<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><br>
<dd>Sincerely,<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Jonathan Robinson<br>
<dd>GNSO Council Chair <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Jeffrey J. Neuman <br>
<dd>Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs<br>
</b>
<dd> <br>
<dd>From:</b>
<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">
owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of </b>Jonathan
Robinson<br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Monday, June 17, 2013 7:02 AM<br>
<dd>To:</b> 'Bruce Tonkin';
<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
<dd>Subject:</b> RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 -
Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... )<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Bruce,<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Thank-you for flagging this.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>We will endeavour to provide you with this.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Jonathan<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>From:</b> Bruce Tonkin
[<a href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au">
mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>] <br>
<dd>Sent:</b> 16 June 2013 23:52<br>
<dd>To:</b>
<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
<dd>Subject:</b> RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 -
Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... )<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Hello Jonathan,<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>For information- the Board Governance Committee is meeting on Tuesday
18 June at 21:00 UTC time.<br>
<dd> <br>
<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.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>I am expecting that the new gTLD program committee will then consider
reconsideration request 13.3 at its meeting on 25 June 2013.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Regards,<br>
<dd>Bruce Tonkin<br>
<dd> <br>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</dl></blockquote></body>
</html>