[council] Draft Letter to BGC

Tue Jun 18 21:43:41 UTC 2013

No objection.

Berard

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 18, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de> wrote:

> All, 
> I have merged the latest proposals into an updated draft.
> 
> Best
> Thomas
> 
> 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, some Councillors have voiced 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 thoroughly review the rationale of the Reconsideration Request and consider deferral of the publication of the rationale 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.n.
> 
> Sincerely,
>  
> Jonathan Robinson
> GNSO Council Chair
> 
> 
> Am 18.06.2013 um 21:32 schrieb Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com>:
> 
>> 
>> I likewise support sending something; preferred the original wording,
>> but can accept this compromise.
>> 
>> --Wendy
>> 
>> On 06/18/2013 01:18 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
>>> Given the discussion we had and the concerns voiced by many Councillors the least I would like to see is doing nothing. I am supportive of Jeff's original language as well as his amended draft. 
>>> 
>>> If some of you have issues with the characterization of the discussion, I propose we can edit the following sentence:
>>> 
>>> Original wording:
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> Proposed language:
>>> Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, some Councillors have voiced concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation.
>>> 
>>> By taking out the "we", this cannot be understood as a Council position.
>>> 
>>> Hope this helps.
>>> 
>>> Thomas
>>> 
>>> Am 18.06.2013 um 18:50 schrieb John Berard <john at crediblecontext.com>:
>>> 
>>>> It is near 1 pm Eastern on June 18.  What does the letter look like now?
>>>> 
>>>> Berard
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> 
>>>> On Jun 18, 2013, at 10:42 AM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson at afilias.info> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 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: 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
>>>>> 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" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>
>>>>> Date: 6/17/13 1:09 pm
>>>>> To: "'jrobinson at afilias.info'" <jrobinson at afilias.info>, "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>, "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 (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: 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
>>>>> 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] 
>>>>> Sent: 16 June 2013 23:52
>>>>> To: 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
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
>> Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
>> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
>> Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
>> http://wendy.seltzer.org/
>> https://www.chillingeffects.org/
>> https://www.torproject.org/
>> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20130618/ef3eb9d7/attachment.html>