ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

I support this suggestion.

Volker
That's a source of frustration, yes. I would also add "apathy" and lack of any ability for the Council to get work done in between meetings as another agenda topic for the weekend session. I really think we should create committees to get some work done in between meetings. With the exception of what I will call "political" issues, talking about agenda items, etc., very little shows up on the mailing lists, or work gets done in between meetings. All of the momentum that we generate during the meetings seems to fizzle out afterwards. 

That has been a source of my frustration for a while.

*Jeffrey J. Neuman**
**Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs*
*From:*owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *WUKnoben 
*Sent:* Thursday, June 27, 2013 12:20 PM
*To:* Volker Greimann; Maria Farrell
*Cc:* John Berard; Jonathan Robinson; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* Re: [council] FYI: NCSG Letter to the Board re. Reconsideration Request 13-3
If I understand this correctly the "frustration" seems to be inherent with the council working mode based on a voting scheme. It may be worthwile to discuss whether this could be overcome with a consensus regime. 

Isn't this a nice agenda item for the weekend opening session in Durban?


Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

*From:*Volker Greimann <mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

*Sent:*Thursday, June 27, 2013 2:13 PM

*To:*Maria Farrell <mailto:maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>
*Cc:*John Berard <mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ; Jonathan Robinson <mailto:jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx> ; WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx> ; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Subject:*Re: [council] FYI: NCSG Letter to the Board re. Reconsideration Request 13-3
It is indeed frustrating that whenever the council fails to take a vote positions are suddenly questioned when it comes to publicly stating concerns a large part of the council holds. The only solution seems to be that prior to ending a discussion on any topic that calls for a letter to be sent or statement to be made at least a measurement of the "temperature of the room" be conducted to see if there is substantial opposition during the meeting, instead of after the letter is drafted. 

Best,

Volker Greimann
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 <mailto: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
    <mailto:jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
    Date: 6/26/13 7:30 am
    To: "'WUKnoben'" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx
    <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, "'Maria Farrell'"
    <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>>,
    council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
    john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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
    <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>]
    *Sent:* 26 June 2013 12:58
    *To:* Maria Farrell; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    <mailto: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 <mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

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

    *To:*Maria Farrell <mailto:maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> ;
    council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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
        <mailto:maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>>
        Date: 6/25/13 1:48 pm
        To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>"
        <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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
        <http://t.co/ss2MwpdWEa> 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




--
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  <mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> 
www.domaindiscount24.com  <http://www.domaindiscount24.com>  /www.BrandShelter.com  
<http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: 
www.facebook.com/KeySystems  <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems  <http://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 <http://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  <mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> 
www.domaindiscount24.com  <http://www.domaindiscount24.com>  /www.BrandShelter.com  
<http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: 
www.facebook.com/KeySystems  <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems  <http://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 <http://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. 


--
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.
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>