[council] Proposed Letter to GAC re: SOI

Mon Mar 25 04:07:57 UTC 2024

Hi all,

Speaking in my personal capacity, I think the Council often strives to keep
out of our official communication to the GAC anything that appears to be
airing dirty laundry, whether in writing or verbally. And I believe that is
why the council hoped a simple statement pointing to the official report
would do it.

Having said that, I really like the first part of the letter. So, in light
of the feedback so far, I think we should remove the summaries section as
Manju suggested.

Warmly,
Tomslin

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024, 13:21 陳曼茹 Manju Chen via council, <
council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:

> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20240325/01ce086d/attachment-0001.html>