[council] Draft Letter to BGC
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Tue Jun 18 17:59:29 UTC 2013
Jeff, isn't the rationale already published? I thought that what was
at issue here was the Board's (ie the new GTLD Comm) ratification of it.
Alan
At 18/06/2013 11:27 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>I do not think this new wording characterizes the discussion that we
>had last week. Adding a footnote to the rationale would not solve
>any of the issues that were raised, and in fact would only introduce
>new (even worse) wrinkles.
>
>I believe a rewording to make it more in line with what Alan had
>suggested is more preferable (Changes in last paragraph):
>
>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>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 defer the
> publication of the rationale of the Reconsideration Request until
> such time that a more complete discussion on this matter can take
> place with the community in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Jonathan Robinson
>GNSO Council Chair
>
>
>
>Jeffrey J. Neuman
>Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
>
>
>From: Zahid Jamil [mailto:zahid at dndrc.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 11:23 AM
>To: Winterfeldt, Brian; owner-council at gnso.icann.org; council at gnso.icann.org
>Cc: John Berard; Neuman, Jeff; bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
>Subject: Re: [council] Draft Letter to BGC
>
>Fully support this rewording.
>
>Zahid Jamil
>Barrister-at-law
>Jamil & Jamil
>Barristers-at-law
>219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
>Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
>Cell: +923008238230
>Tel: +92 213 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
>Fax: +92 213 5655026
><http://www.jamilandjamil.com>www.jamilandjamil.com
>
>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 ***
>
>----------
>From: "Winterfeldt, Brian"
><<mailto:bwinterfeldt at steptoe.com>bwinterfeldt at steptoe.com>
>Sender: <mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org>owner-council at gnso.icann.org
>Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:17:51 +0000
>To:
><mailto:council at gnso.icann.org%3ccouncil at gnso.icann.org>council at gnso.icann.org<council at gnso.icann.org>
>Cc:
><mailto:john at crediblecontext.com%3cjohn at crediblecontext.com>john at crediblecontext.com<john at crediblecontext.com>;
><mailto:Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us%3cJeff.Neuman at neustar.us>Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us<Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>;
><mailto:bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au%3cbruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>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
>
>Brian J. Winterfeldt
>Partner
><mailto:bwinterfeldt at steptoe.com>bwinterfeldt at steptoe.com
>Steptoe
>
>----------
>From:
><mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.orgOn>owner-council at gnso.icann.orgOn
> Behalf OfJonathan Robinson
>Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:42:15 AM
>To: <mailto:john at crediblecontext.com>john at crediblecontext.com;
>'Neuman, Jeff'; 'Bruce Tonkin';
><mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>council at gnso.icann.org
>Subject: RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC
>John,
>
>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?
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>Jonathan
>
>From: <mailto:john at crediblecontext.com>john at crediblecontext.com
>[mailto:john at crediblecontext.com]
>Sent: 17 June 2013 23:25
>To: Neuman, Jeff; 'jrobinson at afilias.info'; 'Bruce Tonkin';
><mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>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.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Berard
>
>--------- Original Message ---------
>Subject: [council] Draft Letter to BGC
>From: "Neuman, Jeff" <<mailto:Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>
>Date: 6/17/13 1:09 pm
>To: "'jrobinson at afilias.info'"
><<mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>jrobinson at afilias.info>, "'Bruce
>Tonkin'"
><<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>,
>"<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>council at gnso.icann.org"
><<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>council at gnso.icann.org>
>Bruce,
>
>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>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.
>Sincerely,
>
>Jonathan Robinson
>GNSO Council Chair
>
>
>Jeffrey J. Neuman
>Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
>
>From:
><mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org>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'; <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>council at gnso.icann.org
>Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 -
>Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... )
>
>Bruce,
>
>Thank-you for flagging this.
>
>We will endeavour to provide you with this.
>
>Jonathan
>
>From: Bruce Tonkin
>[<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au]
>
>Sent: 16 June 2013 23:52
>To: <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>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.
>
>Regards,
>Bruce Tonkin
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20130618/077b3600/attachment.html>
More information about the council
mailing list