Re: [council] Draft Letter to BGC

[John Berard <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It is near 1 pm Eastern on June 18.  What does the letter look like now?

Berard

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 18, 2013, at 10:42 AM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:

> 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] 
> Sent: 17 June 2013 23:25
> To: Neuman, Jeff; 'jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; 
> 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.
>  
> I guess that rolls up to being an objection.
>  
> Cheers,
>  
> Berard
>  
> --------- Original Message ---------
> Subject: [council] Draft Letter to BGC
> From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 6/17/13 1:09 pm
> To: "'jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx'" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Bruce Tonkin'" 
> <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" 
> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Bruce,
>  
> Thanks for forwarding this note on to the Council.  Given the timing 
> sensitivities, I would propose the Council tomorrow sending a note like the 
> one below.  Any objections? 
>  
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  
> 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 withdraw the 
> arguments used to support the ultimate rejection of the Reconsideration 
> Request, and replace the rationale with something more in line with the scope 
> of Reconsideration Requests as outlined in the ICANN Bylaws.  In addition, we 
> ask that we continue the dialogue on the this particular matter in July at 
> the ICANN meeting in Durban.
> 
> Sincerely,
>  
> Jonathan Robinson
> GNSO Council Chair
>  
>  
> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
> 
>  
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 7:02 AM
> To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising 
> from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... )
>  
> Bruce,
>  
> Thank-you for flagging this.
>  
> We will endeavour to provide you with this.
>  
> Jonathan
>  
> From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 16 June 2013 23:52
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising 
> from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... )
>  
> Hello Jonathan,
>  
> For information- the Board Governance Committee is meeting on Tuesday 18 June 
> at 21:00 UTC time.
>  
> A review of the rationale for reconsideration request 13.3 is on the agenda.  
>  Any materials you can provide before then would be useful.
>  
> I am expecting that the new gTLD program committee will then consider 
> reconsideration request 13.3 at its meeting on 25 June 2013.
>  
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>