[council] Draft language

Thu Jun 28 10:07:58 UTC 2012

Thanks to all. I have included a few edits. Is everyone OK with this version?

> 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.  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 in a context of increased global scrutiny. It is therefore imperative that the Board hold itself to the highest standards of transparency and accountability that it is mandated to uphold.

Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM Group NBT France
----------------
Head of Domain Operations
Group NBT

Le 28 juin 2012 à 16:20, <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> a écrit :

> 
> Thanks to David, Alan, John and Brian - this looks good to me.
> 
> Cheers
> Mary
> 
> Sent from a mobile device; please excuse brevity and any grammatical or typographical errors.
> 
> "Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt at steptoe.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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<mailto: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<mailto: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.
> 
> 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<mailto: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.
> 
> 
> 