RE: [council] Request for agenda item for Beijing GNSO Council meeting

[john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

All,


>From a purely personal point-of-view (and as a communications consultant), I 
>was struck by the pejorative nature of some of the language used in what 
>otherwise could have been a motion written to make the point without using the 
>sharp end of a stick.


So as to be specific, I have boldfaced the words that led me to this conclusion:


 "The GNSO Council registers its disappointment and concern at the recent 
adoption in significant parts by ICANN staff of the Trademark Clearing House 
"Strawman Solution", despite the proposal's  flawed genesis and the strong 
opposition to it voiced by both the GNSO council and a significant portion of 
the public comments. The expansion of rights protection mechanisms in the new 
gTLDs, following the comprehensive policy processes of the GNSO that had 
appeared to settle these issues, and also the clear determination by the GNSO 
Council that specific measures therein represent substantive policy-making 
rather than purely technical or operational implementation, represent an 
unwarranted extension into the policy-making function by ICANN staff. 

The GNSO Council strongly regrets the decision to circumvent the established, 
transparent and rules-based policy development process in a top-down 
decision-making process, to the detriment of the GNSO Council's bylaw-defined 
role and the multi-stakeholder model more broadly.

As ICANN staff also currently seeks to endow the Board with top-down and 
unilateral policy authority in the new RA and RAA, without substantive 
justification, the GNSO Council is deeply concerned by the implications of this 
extension of executive privilege, in the adoption of the "Strawman Solution", 
and in other issues, and for the future of the multi-stakeholder model.

The GNSO council therefore requests that the Board re-consider the proposed 
course of action  regarding the TMCH, and, specifically, that the the extension 
of the TMCH claims procedure to 90 days and the inclusion of 50 additional 
terms not to be implemented until these proposals have been approved by a 
majority of the GNSO Council after careful consideration of their 
implications." 


There is no issue that cannot be brought up, many of which are in our mandate 
and some that have led to actionable motions.  This could be one, too, but with 
"disappointment" met with "fervently." I worry the horse may be out of the barn.


See you in a few days.


Cheers,


Berard

--------- Original Message ---------Subject: RE: [council] Request for agenda 
item for Beijing GNSO Council meeting
From: "Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 4/3/13 10:51 am
To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Dear all:
 
The IPC opposes this motion and fervently disagrees with statements proposed 
therein.  We will follow up in due course with additional details on the IPC’s 
position.
 
Thank you,
 
Brian
 
Brian J. Winterfeldt  
Partner 
bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx
Steptoe


From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Jonathan 
Robinson[SMTP:JONATHAN.ROBINSON@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 11:40:47 PM 
To: 'Maria Farrell'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Subject: RE: [council] Request for agenda item for Beijing GNSO Council meeting 
Auto forwarded by a Rule
 
Thanks Maria,
 
One practical question, I believe you are not going to be at the meeting in 
Beijing.
 
So, is it your intention that someone else leads the making of the motion and 
the initial discussion or will you do so remotely?
 
Jonathan
 
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Maria Farrell
Sent: 02 April 2013 23:30
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] Request for agenda item for Beijing GNSO Council meeting
 
Dear Jonathan and fellow Council members,

I would like to request the addition of an item to the draft Beijing GNSO 
Council meeting agenda, circulated earlier today, by proposing a motion for 
discussion and adoption, copied below. 


"The GNSO Council registers its disappointment and concern at the recent 
adoption in significant parts by ICANN staff of the Trademark Clearing House 
"Strawman Solution", despite the proposal's  flawed genesis and the strong 
opposition to it voiced by both the GNSO council and a significant portion of 
the public comments. The expansion of rights protection mechanisms in the new 
gTLDs, following the comprehensive policy processes of the GNSO that had 
appeared to settle these issues, and also the clear determination by the GNSO 
Council that specific measures therein represent substantive policy-making 
rather than purely technical or operational implementation, represent an 
unwarranted extension into the policy-making function by ICANN staff. 

The GNSO Council strongly regrets the decision to circumvent the established, 
transparent and rules-based policy development process in a top-down 
decision-making process, to the detriment of the GNSO Council's bylaw-defined 
role and the multi-stakeholder model more broadly.

As ICANN staff also currently seeks to endow the Board with top-down and 
unilateral policy authority in the new RA and RAA, without substantive 
justification, the GNSO Council is deeply concerned by the implications of this 
extension of executive privilege, in the adoption of the "Strawman Solution", 
and in other issues, and for the future of the multi-stakeholder model.

The GNSO council therefore requests that the Board re-consider the proposed 
course of action  regarding the TMCH, and, specifically, that the the extension 
of the TMCH claims procedure to 90 days and the inclusion of 50 additional 
terms not to be implemented until these proposals have been approved by a 
majority of the GNSO Council after careful consideration of their 
implications." 

Best regards,

Maria