[council] Proposed Letter to GAC re: SOI

[陳曼茹 Manju Chen]

Hi,

In light of Kurt's comment, I think it's more appropriate we delete the
summary of each SG/Cs position and leave it to the SGs and Cs to elaborate
on the delicacy of their decisions to the GAC.

We can add a paragraph in the letter along the line of 'the Council reckons
it is not its place to interpret or explain the position of each SG/Cs on
their behalf. In the case where the GAC finds it needs more details than
what is in the CCOICI report, we recommend the GAC to consult with the SGs
and Cs directly to better understand the rationale behind their statements
and decisions.'

Best,
Manju

On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 12:10 PM kurt kjpritz.com via council <
council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:

> Without checking with RySG leadership or my fellow Councillors, I make the
> following two points regarding the RySG section of the document:
>
> 1. The thrust of the RySG position is that ICANN and the bottom-up model
> legitimacy depends upon transparency. In the draft letter, this point is
> buried under legalistic arguments regarding attorney-client privilege and
> the like. This organization is likely to cause any reader to skip down to
> the next section. The legal arguments might support the main argument but
> they are not in themselves the main point. Regardless of how the RySG
> ordered the points in its statement, the main thrust is about the
> legitimacy of the model. I think your portrayal obscures that clear
> message.
>
> 2. During the ICANN meeting, it was reported that the GAC criticised the
> CPH for voting to defeat the so-called compromise recommendations of the
> CCOICI. This criticism came after the RySG briefed the GAC, indicating
> agreement with the GAC position on the need for transparency and explaining
> that the ’no vote’ was in furtherance of that cause, i.e., that the CPH
> intended to work in partnership with the GAC to develop and implement an
> appropriate set of transparency requirements. The fact that this intention
> was apparently missed by some GAC members was disheartening to the RySG
> leaders, and a correction has been planned. This draft letter to the GAC
> must include this point, that the no vote was the first step in the next,
> meaningful phase to the transparency discussion. The letter cannot merely
> rely on earlier statements but also current developments.
>
> If my RySG colleagues concur, I think the draft letter must be amended to
> address these points. Zooming out a couple levels, I think attempts to
> summarise positions are difficult (e.g., making judgments regarding ’tone,’
> and independently determining recent developments) and should be
> re-considered. But that is a discussion for our larger group.
>
> Thanks for the time and attention to consider this.
>
> Regards,
>
> Kurt
>
> On 22 Mar 2024, at 6:36 am, Jeff Neuman via council <
> council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> I feel like I should explain why I drafted the letter in the way that I
> have since I have gotten some informal feedback.  Yes, I understand the
> Council did not want to paraphrase the CCOICI statements and just send over
> the report to the GAC telling them it is in there.  But, I thought I would
> send an example of using a different approach for the letter for the
> following reasons:
>
>
>    1. After reviewing the documentation, I realized that a number of the
>    Cs and SGs in their statements were responding to an original report (that
>    is not attached to the C and SG statements).  That original report had
>    language that was considered a “compromise proposal”  The compromise
>    proposal was ultimately not accepted and is not described in detail in the
>    C and SG statements or really in the CCOICI Recommendation Report.  But
>    because the C and SG statements were responding to the compromise proposal
>    as part of the original report, there is a lot of language in the C and SG
>    statements about that compromise language.  If we just referred the GAC to
>    the statements, the would not have the context of what this compromise
>    proposal was and therefore it would be very confusing to the GAC members.
>    Therefore, in my summaries, I did not include the C and SG views on the
>    compromise proposal (since that no longer exists).
>
>    2. Some of the C and SG statements (and I am not making a judgment
>    here) are written in a semi-aggressive and combative tone in how they
>    address other Cs and SGs.  Statements like “I find it ironic that this
>    particular C supports X, when it supports Y in some other situation.”  It
>    is not related to the ultimate debate for this issue and frankly to just
>    send it over without explanation to me seems like airing dirty laundry to
>    persons outside of the GNSO.  So, in the summaries I removed that language.
>
>    3. The C and SG statements in the Annex of the report are in no
>    particular order.  They are not grouped in any logical way and I thought
>    grouping them into 2 categories, statements in support of the current
>    exemption, and statements opposed to the current exemption, would make for
>    an easier review.
>
>    4. All of the language I used in the “summary” of the C and SG
>    positions are direct quotes and not my own language because I recognize the
>    importance of keeping that language in place and I did not want to
>    paraphrase anyone’s opinions.
>
>
> If the Council wants to take the summaries out the of the letter, that is
> the Council’s prerogative, and it should do what it wants.  But in light of
> the view that the GAC wanted the GNSO Council to explain the different
> positions (to understand why the GNSO did not get consensus), and the fact
> that when the GAC sends us talking points and other documents they: (a) are
> well organized, (b) provide rationale, and (c) rarely just say “look at
> what we said before” (even if they are just stating what the said before),
> we could reciprocate and provide a helpful document back.
>
> Again, I understand it is more than what was asked for but it is easy
> enough to pear down should you wish to do so.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Founder & CEO
> JJN Solutions, LLC
> +1.202.549.5079
> Jeff at jjnsolutions.com
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Jeff Neuman <Jeff at JJNSolutions.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 20, 2024 10:39 AM
> *To:* council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Subject:* Proposed Letter to GAC re: SOI
>
> All,
>
> Please find at the link below a proposed first draft of a letter to the
> GAC
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/145cXGFHFVChWZSd8-tL1ce5xNRafLwYHfIe4PImN3IQ/edit?usp=sharing> as
> discussed during the last GNSO Council meeting.  The letter attempts to
> summarize the positions of each SG/C on the professional ethics exemption
> to the SOI as expressed in Annex A of the CCOICI's Task Force's
> Recommendations Report.
>
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/145cXGFHFVChWZSd8-tL1ce5xNRafLwYHfIe4PImN3IQ/edit?usp=sharing>
> SOI Letter from GNSO Council
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/145cXGFHFVChWZSd8-tL1ce5xNRafLwYHfIe4PImN3IQ/edit?usp=sharing>
> docs.google.com
>
>
> Yes, we can just send a letter attaching word for word what Annex A states
> (and I do attach it to this letter).  However, I believe I have accurately
> summarized those 7 pages or so into just over 2 pages.  I essentially use
> mostly quotes from the actual positions taken, but eliminated some of the
> examples and restatements in those positions.    I believe the summaries,
> however, will be much more easily digestible by those that may not have the
> time to read every word.
>
> This is just a first draft and I hand it over to the Council to take it
> from here if it finds this helpful. [The Google Doc itself has a link to
> the Recommendations Report]
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jeff Neuman
> GNSO Liaison to GAC
>
> Google Link:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/145cXGFHFVChWZSd8-tL1ce5xNRafLwYHfIe4PImN3IQ/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
> <Outlook-v5hjme1t.png>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20240325/3e9ea815/attachment-0001.html>