<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Personally, I have no difficulty with the principle of the point made by John and supported by Wolf-Ulrich.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>That said, I believe Jeff has articulated a concern regarding this item which was then discussed and there was clearly some (un-quantified) support on the Council for this position.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Therefore, what would be helpful to me, and likely to the Council as a whole, is to hear any arguments as to why the concerns articulated are not necessarily concerns.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I hope I am not doing anyone a disservice here but I thought I heard questions seeking clarification or detail and some proposed variations to the wording of our communication with BGC, but not necessarily any substantive arguments as to why the concerns raised (originally by Jeff) should not be concerns.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Jonathan<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de] <br><b>Sent:</b> 26 June 2013 12:58<br><b>To:</b> Maria Farrell; council@gnso.icann.org; john@crediblecontext.com<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [council] FYI: NCSG Letter to the Board re. Reconsideration Request 13-3<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>With respect to the fairness to those who did not raise similar concerns or couldn’t support the concerns raised at the last council meeting I join John’s comment.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'><br>Best regards<br><br>Wolf-Ulrich<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:whitesmoke'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black'> <a href="mailto:john@crediblecontext.com" title="john@crediblecontext.com">john@crediblecontext.com</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:whitesmoke'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black'>Sent:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black'> Wednesday, June 26, 2013 12:41 AM<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:whitesmoke'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black'>To:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black'> <a href="mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com" title="maria.farrell@gmail.com">Maria Farrell</a> ; <a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org" title="council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:whitesmoke'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black'>Subject:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black'> RE: [council] FYI: NCSG Letter to the Board re. Reconsideration Request 13-3<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>Maria,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>I am a fan of short-hand and jargon (it make life quicker and excludes the uninitiated) but your letter should have more correctly said "<em><b><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Some members of</span></b></em> the GNSO Council expressed concern..." It is clear there is no position taken and no unanimity.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>A fine but important point.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>Cheers,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>Berard<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #C2C2C2 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 2.0pt;margin-left:3.0pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>--------- Original Message --------- <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>Subject: [council] FYI: NCSG Letter to the Board re. Reconsideration Request 13-3<br>From: "Maria Farrell" <<a href="mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com">maria.farrell@gmail.com</a>><br>Date: 6/25/13 1:48 pm<br>To: "<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a>><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>Dear Council colleagues,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>Below for your information is a copy of a letter sent on behalf of the NCSG to the Board of Directors, which was received by the Board (via Bruce Tonkin's kind intercession) on 19 June. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>Bruce says the Board would be interested to meet and discuss the broad concerns about the multistakeholder model raised in the reconsideration request, and also confirms that the request itself will be discussed at the BGC meeting of 25 June. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>If and when we have any scheduling information about a meeting with the Board, we will share it so that others may be aware. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>All the best,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>Maria<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'><br>Dear ICANN Board of Directors:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>I am writing to you on behalf of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) and other concerned members of the ICANN community regarding the harmful implications to the community-led multi-stakeholder policy development model if the ICANN Board decides to adopt the rationale provided in the recommendation of the Board Governance Committee (BGC) in response to the NCSG's Request for Reconsideration (13-3). The rationale provided in the BGC's recommendation, which appears to be drafted by over-reaching lawyers, attempts to set a precedent that ICANN staff can over-rule the GNSO Council on policy decisions at its own discretion. This decision has alarmed community members beyond the NCSG and beyond those who were originally concerned with the underlying issue that NCSG was initially probing of staff's adoption of the "TM+50" policy for the Trademark Clearinghouse. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>The GNSO Council expressed concern about the BGC decision rationale at length during council's 13 June meeting; and I encourage all Board Members to listen to <a href="http://t.co/ss2MwpdWEa" target="_blank">audio recording</a> of the GNSO Council discussion or read the attached transcript to get a better understanding the concerns of members of several different GNSO stakeholder groups. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>The rationale provided in the BGC decision, if adopted by the entire board, would cement the change in ICANN's policy development model away from the bottom-up community-led governance model to a top-down staff-driven model with no checks on abuses or poor staff decisions. If the rationale provided in this BGC decision is adopted by the Board, which goes well beyond the narrow issue presented to it, ICANN threatens to undermine its own legitimacy as a global governance institution, and it loses the ability to label itself as a community-led bottom-up model for Internet governance.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>We understand the BGC's recommendation is on the agenda to be adopted on 25 June 2013 by the Board's New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC). Given the Board's record of adopting all 15 BGC decisions that have come before it in the last ten years, there is concern that this BGC recommendation will be similarly adopted by the Board with little understanding or discussion of the harm to ICANN's legitimacy and the multi-stakeholder model that this precedent threatens. The handling of this reconsideration request has also raised concerns about ICANN's "accountability" mechanism, which appears to allow the same legal team that created and adopted a policy to later evaluate the legitimacy of that policy's adoption.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><em><b><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>We therefore respectfully request that the Board meet with concerned members of the community including NCSG to permit a more complete discussion and understanding of the concerns raised by the rationale provided in the BGC decision and to allow for appropriate adjustments to the decision before it is adopted by the Board.</span></b></em><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'> We would gladly meet with the Members of the ICANN Board during the Durban Meeting or before, at the Board's convenience, to discuss this decision and welcome all members of the community to join in the discussion. Please let us know if the Board is available to meet with NCSG and others in the community on this crucial issue at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to fruitful discussions going into Durban and stand ready to provide whatever assistance is needed.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>Truly,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>Robin Gross<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>NCSG Chair<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></body></html>