Re: [council] FYI: NCSG Letter to the Board re. Reconsideration Request 13-3

[John Berard <johnberard@xxxxxxx>]

Maria,

I am confused.  Are you saying that I am standing in the way of a letter to the 
board goverance group on this matter?  That is FAR from the case.  I just don't 
support "the Council feels" stuff because it is all subjective, even with our 
call, its transcript and this robust email exchange.  That's why you haven't 
heard much in the way of substantive disagreement except from Brian who was on 
the record clearly and early.

The point I am pressing is that the decision's basis has raised serious 
questions for the Council that ought to be aired and addressed.

Cheers,

Berard
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>
To: John Berard <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>; WUKnoben 
<wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>; council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thu, Jun 27, 2013 3:56 am
Subject: Re: [council] FYI: NCSG Letter to the Board re. Reconsideration 
Request 13-3



Thanks, John, for your comments. I'm not sure how fruitful it is to continue 
pressing the point, but it seems clear to me that a majority of the stakeholder 
groups on the Council are very concerned with the issues NCSG has raised in its 
request and that Jeff has articulated in his letter. 

I have found it frustrating that efforts to secure agreement on any core 
principles of concern appear to have foundered, so I'm not sure how 
constructive it is to keep saying that the Council as a whole doesn't have a 
view.

I haven't heard much in the way of substantive disagreement, but perhaps my 
impression of our most recent call where others expressed concern about process 
or their ability to be heard is colouring my memory.


In any case, what is the status of a letter from the Council to the Board, 
articulating concerns? Can a formal decision taken to either send or not send 
Jeff's letter?


I think it is time we rose above individual stakeholder group concerns and 
considered the implications for the Council as a whole. 



All the best, Maria




On 26 June 2013 17:42,  <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Jonathan,
 
I will repeat what I said initially.
 
Jeff's proposed letter was accurate in exposing a set of issues that was of 
intense interest to the Council.  It was incorrect is suggesting the view was 
unanimous and that there was some decision taken on the part of the Council 
about it.
 
Raise the matter -- I was the one who brought of the notion of exectivication 
of decision making at ICANN -- sure, but be clear it is our concern, not our 
judgement.
 
Berard
 
--------- Original Message ---------
Subject: RE: [council] FYI: NCSG Letter to the Board re. Reconsideration 
Request 13-3


From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 6/26/13 7:30 am
To: "'WUKnoben'" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Maria Farrell'" 
<maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>, council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Personally, I have no difficulty with the principle of the point made by John 
and supported by Wolf-Ulrich.
 
That said, I believe Jeff has articulated a concern regarding this item which 
was then discussed and there was clearly some (un-quantified) support on the 
Council for this position.
 
Therefore, what would be helpful to me, and likely to the Council as a whole, 
is to hear any arguments as to why the concerns articulated are not necessarily 
concerns.
 
I hope I am not doing anyone a disservice here but I thought I heard questions 
seeking clarification or detail and some proposed variations to the wording of 
our communication with BGC,  but not necessarily any substantive arguments as 
to why the concerns raised (originally by Jeff) should not be concerns.
 
Thanks,
 
 
Jonathan
 

From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 26 June 2013 12:58
To: Maria Farrell; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] FYI: NCSG Letter to the Board re. Reconsideration 
Request 13-3

 


With respect to the fairness to those who did not raise similar concerns or 
couldn’t support the concerns raised at the last council meeting I join John’s 
comment.


Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich


 


From: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 12:41 AM

To: Maria Farrell ; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

Subject: RE: [council] FYI: NCSG Letter to the Board re. Reconsideration 
Request 13-3


 


Maria,

 

I am a fan of short-hand and jargon (it make life quicker and excludes the 
uninitiated) but your letter should have more correctly said "Some members of 
the GNSO Council expressed concern..."  It is clear there is no position taken 
and no unanimity.

 

A fine but important point.

 

Cheers,

 

Berard

 

--------- Original Message --------- 

Subject: [council] FYI: NCSG Letter to the Board re. Reconsideration Request 
13-3
From: "Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 6/25/13 1:48 pm
To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


Dear Council colleagues,

Below for your information is a copy of a letter sent on behalf of the NCSG to 
the Board of Directors, which was received by the Board (via Bruce Tonkin's 
kind intercession) on 19 June. 

Bruce says the Board would be interested to meet and discuss the broad concerns 
about the multistakeholder model raised in the reconsideration request, and 
also confirms that the request itself will be discussed at the BGC meeting of 
25 June. 

If and when we have any scheduling information about a meeting with the Board, 
we will share it so that others may be aware. 

 

All the best,

Maria


Dear ICANN Board of Directors:

 

I am writing to you on behalf of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) 
and other concerned members of the ICANN community regarding the harmful 
implications to the community-led multi-stakeholder policy development model if 
the ICANN Board decides to adopt the rationale provided in the recommendation 
of the Board Governance Committee (BGC) in response to the NCSG's Request for 
Reconsideration (13-3).  The rationale provided in the BGC's recommendation, 
which appears to be drafted by over-reaching lawyers, attempts to set a 
precedent that ICANN staff can over-rule the GNSO Council on policy decisions 
at its own discretion.  This decision has alarmed community members beyond the 
NCSG and beyond those who were originally concerned with the underlying issue 
that NCSG was initially probing of staff's adoption of the "TM+50" policy for 
the Trademark Clearinghouse.  

 

The GNSO Council expressed concern about the BGC decision rationale at length 
during council's 13 June meeting; and I encourage all Board Members to listen 
to audio recording of the GNSO Council discussion or read the attached 
transcript to get a better understanding the concerns of members of several 
different GNSO stakeholder groups.  

 

The rationale provided in the BGC decision, if adopted by the entire board, 
would cement the change in ICANN's policy development model away from the 
bottom-up community-led governance model to a top-down staff-driven model with 
no checks on abuses or poor staff decisions.  If the rationale provided in this 
BGC decision is adopted by the Board, which goes well beyond the narrow issue 
presented to it, ICANN threatens to undermine its own legitimacy as a global 
governance institution, and it loses the ability to label itself as a 
community-led bottom-up model for Internet governance.

 

We understand the BGC's recommendation is on the agenda to be adopted on 25 
June 2013 by the Board's New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC).  Given the Board's 
record of adopting all 15 BGC decisions that have come before it in the last 
ten years, there is concern that this BGC recommendation will be similarly 
adopted by the Board with little understanding or discussion of the harm to 
ICANN's legitimacy and the multi-stakeholder model that this precedent 
threatens.  The handling of this reconsideration request has also raised 
concerns about ICANN's "accountability" mechanism, which appears to allow the 
same legal team that created and adopted a policy to later evaluate the 
legitimacy of that policy's adoption.

 

We therefore respectfully request that the Board meet with concerned members of 
the community including NCSG to permit a more complete discussion and 
understanding of the concerns raised by the rationale provided in the BGC 
decision and to allow for appropriate adjustments to the decision before it is 
adopted by the Board.  We would gladly meet with the Members of the ICANN Board 
during the Durban Meeting or before, at the Board's convenience, to discuss 
this decision and welcome all members of the community to join in the 
discussion.   Please let us know if the Board is available to meet with NCSG 
and others in the community on this crucial issue at your earliest convenience. 
  Thank you for your consideration.  We look forward to fruitful discussions 
going into Durban and stand ready to provide whatever assistance is needed.

 

Truly,

Robin Gross

NCSG Chair