[council] Draft Letter to BGC

Zahid Jamil zahid at dndrc.com
Tue Jun 18 15:22:55 UTC 2013

Fully support this rewording.

Zahid Jamil
Jamil & Jamil
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
Cell: +923008238230
Tel: +92 213 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
Fax: +92 213 5655026

Notice / Disclaimer
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.

*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***

-----Original Message-----
From: "Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt at steptoe.com>
Sender: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:17:51 
To: council at gnso.icann.org<council at gnso.icann.org>
Cc: john at crediblecontext.com<john at crediblecontext.com>; Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us<Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>; bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au<bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
Subject: RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC

Dear all:

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:
"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."

Thank you,


Brian J. Winterfeldt
bwinterfeldt at steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt at steptoe.com>
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.orgOn<mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.orgOn> Behalf OfJonathan Robinson
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:42:15 AM
To: john at crediblecontext.com<mailto:john at crediblecontext.com>; 'Neuman, Jeff'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC

Good that the short version makes sense.  It's often the case as you well know!

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.
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.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily require a vote for us to take action.

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.
If we are to do something before the BGC meets, we need to do it fast.

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.
Is there a variation on what Jeff has written that you feel you could support reasonably well in advance of the 21h00 deadline?



From: john at crediblecontext.com<mailto:john at crediblecontext.com> [mailto:john at crediblecontext.com]
Sent: 17 June 2013 23:25
To: Neuman, Jeff; 'jrobinson at afilias.info'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC

Jeff, et. al.,

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.

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.

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.

I guess that rolls up to being an objection.



--------- Original Message ---------
Subject: [council] Draft Letter to BGC
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>>
Date: 6/17/13 1:09 pm
To: "'jrobinson at afilias.info'" <jrobinson at afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>>, "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>>, "council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>" <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>

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?


Dear Board Governance Committee,

                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 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendation-ncsg-16may13-en.pdf (Recommendation) during its regular monthly Council call on June 16, 2013.

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.

                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.


Jonathan Robinson
GNSO Council Chair

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 7:02 AM
To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... )


Thank-you for flagging this.

We will endeavour to provide you with this.


From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au]
Sent: 16 June 2013 23:52
To: council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... )

Hello Jonathan,

For information- the Board Governance Committee is meeting on Tuesday 18 June at 21:00 UTC time.

A review of the rationale for reconsideration request 13.3 is on the agenda.   Any materials you can provide before then would be useful.

I am expecting that the new gTLD program committee will then consider reconsideration request 13.3 at its meeting on 25 June 2013.

Bruce Tonkin

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20130618/b8da35fe/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list