Re: [council] Draft Letter to BGC

[John Berard <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

No objection.

Berard

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 18, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> All, 
> I have merged the latest proposals into an updated draft.
> 
> Best
> Thomas
> 
> 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, some Councillors have voiced 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 thoroughly review 
> the rationale of the Reconsideration Request and consider deferral of the 
> 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.n.
> 
> Sincerely,
>  
> Jonathan Robinson
> GNSO Council Chair
> 
> 
> Am 18.06.2013 um 21:32 schrieb Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> 
>> 
>> I likewise support sending something; preferred the original wording,
>> but can accept this compromise.
>> 
>> --Wendy
>> 
>> On 06/18/2013 01:18 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
>>> Given the discussion we had and the concerns voiced by many Councillors the 
>>> least I would like to see is doing nothing. I am supportive of Jeff's 
>>> original language as well as his amended draft. 
>>> 
>>> If some of you have issues with the characterization of the discussion, I 
>>> propose we can edit the following sentence:
>>> 
>>> Original wording:
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> Proposed language:
>>> Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of 
>>> Reconsideration Requests in general, some Councillors have voiced concerns 
>>> with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the 
>>> Recommendation.
>>> 
>>> By taking out the "we", this cannot be understood as a Council position.
>>> 
>>> Hope this helps.
>>> 
>>> Thomas
>>> 
>>> Am 18.06.2013 um 18:50 schrieb 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
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx +1 617.863.0613
>> Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
>> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
>> Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
>> http://wendy.seltzer.org/
>> https://www.chillingeffects.org/
>> https://www.torproject.org/
>> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
>