Re: [council] Draft Letter to BGC

[Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I would second that as a compromise.

Volker
> Jeff has offered a diluted version of his original draft.
>
> Brian has offered a different approach.
>
> One variant to Jeff’s proposed last sentence could be:
>
> Change:
>
> 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.
> To:
>
> We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to thoroughly review the 
> rationale of the Reconsideration Request and consider deferral ofthe 
> publication of the rationale 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.
> It’s not prescriptive on a solution but clearly raises the concern.
>
> Any takers for that?
>
> Jonathan
>
> *From:*John Berard [mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* 18 June 2013 18:50
> *To:* <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Cc:* Neuman, Jeff; Bruce Tonkin; <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Subject:* Re: [council] Draft Letter to BGC
>
> 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 <mailto: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>
>     [mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>     *Sent:* 17 June 2013 23:25
>     *To:* Neuman, Jeff; 'jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>     <mailto: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.
>
>     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
>         <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>
>         Date: 6/17/13 1:09 pm
>         To: "'jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>'"
>         <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>,
>         "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>         <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>,
>         "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>"
>         <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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>
>         [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan
>         Robinson
>         *Sent:* Monday, June 17, 2013 7:02 AM
>         *To:* 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>         <mailto: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 <mailto: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

--
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.