Re: [council] Draft Letter to BGC
I regret that I was not able to be present during the call last week, but I support the original draft as proposed, without the rewording. The issue of the role of the GNSO and the GNSO council with regard to board and staff decisions is too important to be watered down. We must on the council level rise to the defense of the multi-stakeholder model, otherwise it will become a fig leave solely for the purpose of legitimizing the role of ICANN. ICANN continues to defend its role in public by proclaiming the multi-stakeholder model, but if it internally works to dismantle it, it will play into the hands of those that prefer another model. Best regards, Volker I do not think this new wording characterizes the discussion that we had last week. Adding a footnote to the rationale would not solve any of the issues that were raised, and in fact would only introduce new (even worse) wrinkles.I believe a rewording to make it more in line with what Alan had suggested is more preferable (Changes in last paragraph):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 defer the publication of the rationale of the Reconsideration Request 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.Sincerely, Jonathan Robinson GNSO Council Chair *Jeffrey J. Neuman** **Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs* *From:*Zahid Jamil [mailto:zahid@xxxxxxxxx] *Sent:* Tuesday, June 18, 2013 11:23 AM*To:* Winterfeldt, Brian; owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Cc:* John Berard; Neuman, Jeff; bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx *Subject:* Re: [council] Draft Letter to BGC Fully support this rewording. Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 213 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 213 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com <http://www.jamilandjamil.com> Notice / DisclaimerThis message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited.*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***------------------------------------------------------------------------*From: *"Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx>>*Sender: *owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Date: *Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:17:51 +0000*To: *council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx%3ccouncil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>*Cc: *john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx%3cjohn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>; Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx%3cJeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>; bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx%3cbruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>*Subject: *RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC Dear all:The IPC does not agree that the BGC's rationale need be thrown out. As an alternative, you might consider the following language in a footnote to the rationale, which we would have vetted with the full Council in due course, but for the intense pace at which this conversation is unfolding:"This analysis is limited to consideration of whether the Board violated ICANN policy, and specifically the policies set forth in Annex A, Section 9 of the ICANN Bylaws, which require consultation with the GNSO Council where a PDP-developed recommendation is not approved by the Board. It is beyond the scope of this Recommendation to consider whether, how and when the Board engages the GNSO Council in discussions following GNSO council statements or other actions outside the PDP process, and this Recommendation expresses no opinion on such matters."Thank you, Brian *__* *Brian J. Winterfeldt * Partner _bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx>_ Steptoe ------------------------------------------------------------------------*From:*owner-council@gnso.icann.orgOn <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.orgOn> Behalf OfJonathan Robinson*Sent:* Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:42:15 AM*To:* john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 'Neuman, Jeff'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Subject:* RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]*Sent:* 17 June 2013 23:25*To:* Neuman, Jeff; 'jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*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. -- 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu 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.
|