[council] Draft language

[Jonathan Robinson]

I think the impact of presenting this at the public forum is significant and worth considering.

 

Jonathan

 

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Winterfeldt, Brian
Sent: 28 June 2012 11:47
To: 'John Berard'
Cc: council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: RE: [council] Draft language

 

Please see revised draft below with correction suggested by Alan and with John’s suggestion which I think is helpful.


Kind regards,

 

Brian J. Winterfeldt  

Partner 

bwinterfeldt at steptoe.com

Steptoe

 

From: John Berard [mailto:john at crediblecontext.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 5:40 AM
To: Winterfeldt, Brian
Cc: council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] Draft language

 

Brian,

 

Note my boldface suggestion:

 

The GNSO Council wishes to express its disappointment with the Board's decision to meet in a closed session on Saturday 23 June to vote on a topic which was slated for discussion at the public forum on Thursday, January 28, 2012 :http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2. 

 

ICANN staff had placed the topic of the renewal of the .com Agreement on the Thursday public forum agenda some time ago, and this item remains on the public forum agenda tomorrow.  We are aware that of a number of GNSO constituencies, stakeholder groups and/or Advisory Committees that were looking forward to addressing this subject with the board and the ICANN community at the Public Forum.  However, although the GNSO Council and its constituencies were aware of the Board's intent to discuss the contract, we were not aware of its intent to approve the contract at its closed session. 

 

 

This comment is not with regard to the merits of the Board’s action, it is for the constituencies or stakeholder groups to highlight those as they see fit.  However, we, the GNSO Council, find the process followed by the Board to be objectionable at a time when we are all being urged to advocate for the ICANN model at time of increased global scrutiny, and its is therefore imperative that the Board hold itself to the highest standards of transparency and accountability that it is mandated to uphold.

 

 


On Jun 28, 2012, at 10:52 AM, "Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt at steptoe.com> wrote:

Jeff

 

As requested, how about the below draft:

 

The GNSO Council wishes to express its disappointment with the Board's decision to meet in a closed session on Saturday 23 June to vote on a topic which was slated for discussion at the public forum on Thursday, January 28, 2012 :  <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2.  

 

ICANN staff had placed the topic of the renewal of the .com Agreement on the Thursday public forum agenda some time ago, and this item remains on the public forum agenda tomorrow.  We are aware that of a number of GNSO constituencies, stakeholder groups and/or Advisory Committees that were looking forward to addressing this subject with the board and the ICANN community at the Public Forum.  However, neither the GNSO Council nor its constituencies, stakeholder groups or liaisons were aware of the Board's closed session and adoption of the draft agreement 

 

This comment is not with regard to the merits of the Board’s action, it is for the constituencies or stakeholder groups to highlight those as they see fit.  However, we, the GNSO Council, find the process followed by the Board to be objectionable at a time when the private sector is being urged to advocate for the ICANN model, and its is therefore imperative that the Board hold itself to the highest standards of transparency and accountability that it is mandated to uphold. 

 

Hope helpful. 

 

Kind regards

 

 

 

Brian J. Winterfeldt  

Partner 

bwinterfeldt at steptoe.com

Steptoe

 


+1 202 429 6260 direct

+1 202 903 4422 mobile

+1 202 429 3902 fax

Steptoe & Johnson LLP

1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20036

www.steptoe.com <http://www.steptoe.com/> 

 

 

This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm Steptoe & Johnson LLP that may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20120628/17edd67a/attachment.html>