[council] FYI: NCSG Letter to the Board re. Reconsideration Request 13-3

john at crediblecontext.com john at crediblecontext.com
Thu Jun 27 16:45:19 UTC 2013

I am now starting to take this personally.
Please review my comments on this matter.  I am not opposed to publicly stating concerns, and your phrasing, "a large part of the council holds" more than adequately addressed the concern I did have. 
It was couching the view of the Council as the product of a deliberative process that I did not like.  I am not arguing the board governance committee's decision, just its rationale.
If I am too thin skinned on this matter or have misunderstood the intent, I apologize for being wrong, but I do not want to be said to be standing in he way of a request from the Council for a review of the way the decision was made.  It was, indeed, a view of a large part of the Council.
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [council] FYI: NCSG Letter to the Board re. Reconsideration Request 13-3
From: "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann at key-systems.net>
Date: 6/27/13 5:13 am
To: "Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell at gmail.com>
Cc: "John Berard" <john at crediblecontext.com>, "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>, "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>

It is indeed frustrating that whenever the council fails to take a vote positions are suddenly questioned when it comes to publicly stating concerns a large part of the council holds. The only solution seems to be that prior to ending a discussion on any topic that calls for a letter to be sent or statement to be made at least a measurement of the "temperature of the room" be conducted to see if there is substantial opposition during the meeting, instead of after the letter is drafted.
 Volker Greimann
    Thanks, John, for your comments. I'm not sure how fruitful it is to continue pressing the point, but it seems clear to me that a majority of the stakeholder groups on the Council are very concerned with the issues NCSG has raised in its request and that Jeff has articulated in his letter. 
 I have found it frustrating that efforts to secure agreement on any core principles of concern appear to have foundered, so I'm not sure how constructive it is to keep saying that the Council as a whole doesn't have a view.
 I haven't heard much in the way of substantive disagreement, but perhaps my impression of our most recent call where others expressed concern about process or their ability to be heard is colouring my memory.
In any case, what is the status of a letter from the Council to the Board, articulating concerns? Can a formal decision taken to either send or not send Jeff's letter?
I think it is time we rose above individual stakeholder group concerns and considered the implications for the Council as a whole. 
All the best, Maria

 On 26 June 2013 17:42, <john at crediblecontext.com> wrote:
I will repeat what I said initially.
Jeff's proposed letter was accurate in exposing a set of issues that was of intense interest to the Council.  It was incorrect is suggesting the view was unanimous and that there was some decision taken on the part of the Council about it.
Raise the matter -- I was the one who brought of the notion of exectivication of decision making at ICANN -- sure, but be clear it is our concern, not our judgement.
--------- Original Message ---------  Subject: RE: [council] FYI: NCSG Letter to the Board re. Reconsideration Request 13-3
From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>
 Date: 6/26/13 7:30 am
 To: "'WUKnoben'" <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>, "'Maria Farrell'" <maria.farrell at gmail.com>, council at gnso.icann.org, john at crediblecontext.com
  Personally, I have no difficulty with the principle of the point made by John and supported by Wolf-Ulrich.
 That said, I believe Jeff has articulated a concern regarding this item which was then discussed and there was clearly some (un-quantified) support on the Council for this position.
 Therefore, what would be helpful to me, and likely to the Council as a whole, is to hear any arguments as to why the concerns articulated are not necessarily concerns.
 I hope I am not doing anyone a disservice here but I thought I heard questions seeking clarification or detail and some proposed variations to the wording of our communication with BGC,  but not necessarily any substantive arguments as to why the concerns raised (originally by Jeff) should not be concerns.
   From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de] 
 Sent: 26 June 2013 12:58
 To: Maria Farrell; council at gnso.icann.org; john at crediblecontext.com
 Subject: Re: [council] FYI: NCSG Letter to the Board re. Reconsideration Request 13-3

    With respect to the fairness to those who did not raise similar concerns or couldn't support the concerns raised at the last council meeting I join John's comment.

 Best regards
From: john at crediblecontext.com 
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 12:41 AM
To: Maria Farrell ; council at gnso.icann.org 
Subject: RE: [council] FYI: NCSG Letter to the Board re. Reconsideration Request 13-3


I am a fan of short-hand and jargon (it make life quicker and excludes the uninitiated) but your letter should have more correctly said "Some members of the GNSO Council expressed concern..."  It is clear there is no position taken and no unanimity.
A fine but important point.
 --------- Original Message --------- 
  Subject: [council] FYI: NCSG Letter to the Board re. Reconsideration Request 13-3
 From: "Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell at gmail.com>
 Date: 6/25/13 1:48 pm
 To: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
    Dear Council colleagues,
Below for your information is a copy of a letter sent on behalf of the NCSG to the Board of Directors, which was received by the Board (via Bruce Tonkin's kind intercession) on 19 June. 
Bruce says the Board would be interested to meet and discuss the broad concerns about the multistakeholder model raised in the reconsideration request, and also confirms that the request itself will be discussed at the BGC meeting of 25 June. 
If and when we have any scheduling information about a meeting with the Board, we will share it so that others may be aware. 
All the best,

 Dear ICANN Board of Directors:
I am writing to you on behalf of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) and other concerned members of the ICANN community regarding the harmful implications to the community-led multi-stakeholder policy development model if the ICANN Board decides to adopt the rationale provided in the recommendation of the Board Governance Committee (BGC) in response to the NCSG's Request for Reconsideration (13-3).  The rationale provided in the BGC's recommendation, which appears to be drafted by over-reaching lawyers, attempts to set a precedent that ICANN staff can over-rule the GNSO Council on policy decisions at its own discretion.  This decision has alarmed community members beyond the NCSG and beyond those who were originally concerned with the underlying issue that NCSG was initially probing of staff's adoption of the "TM+50" policy for the Trademark Clearinghouse.  
The GNSO Council expressed concern about the BGC decision rationale at length during council's 13 June meeting; and I encourage all Board Members to listen to audio recording of the GNSO Council discussion or read the attached transcript to get a better understanding the concerns of members of several different GNSO stakeholder groups.  
The rationale provided in the BGC decision, if adopted by the entire board, would cement the change in ICANN's policy development model away from the bottom-up community-led governance model to a top-down staff-driven model with no checks on abuses or poor staff decisions.  If the rationale provided in this BGC decision is adopted by the Board, which goes well beyond the narrow issue presented to it, ICANN threatens to undermine its own legitimacy as a global governance institution, and it loses the ability to label itself as a community-led bottom-up model for Internet governance.
We understand the BGC's recommendation is on the agenda to be adopted on 25 June 2013 by the Board's New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC).  Given the Board's record of adopting all 15 BGC decisions that have come before it in the last ten years, there is concern that this BGC recommendation will be similarly adopted by the Board with little understanding or discussion of the harm to ICANN's legitimacy and the multi-stakeholder model that this precedent threatens.  The handling of this reconsideration request has also raised concerns about ICANN's "accountability" mechanism, which appears to allow the same legal team that created and adopted a policy to later evaluate the legitimacy of that policy's adoption.
We therefore respectfully request that the Board meet with concerned members of the community including NCSG to permit a more complete discussion and understanding of the concerns raised by the rationale provided in the BGC decision and to allow for appropriate adjustments to the decision before it is adopted by the Board.  We would gladly meet with the Members of the ICANN Board during the Durban Meeting or before, at the Board's convenience, to discuss this decision and welcome all members of the community to join in the discussion.   Please let us know if the Board is available to meet with NCSG and others in the community on this crucial issue at your earliest convenience.   Thank you for your consideration.  We look forward to fruitful discussions going into Durban and stand ready to provide whatever assistance is needed.
Robin Gross
NCSG Chair



 Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
 Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
 Volker A. Greimann
 - Rechtsabteilung -
 Key-Systems GmbH
 Im Oberen Werk 1
 66386 St. Ingbert
 Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
 Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
 Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
 www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
 Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
 Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
 Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken 
 Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
 Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
 Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
 Best regards,
 Volker A. Greimann
 - legal department -
 Key-Systems GmbH
 Im Oberen Werk 1
 66386 St. Ingbert
 Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
 Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
 Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
 www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
 Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
 CEO: Alexander Siffrin
 Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken 
 V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
 This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20130627/37d6b1e1/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list