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

[Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John,

I I wrote my comments in a way that they could be understood as to be 
directed towards you personally, I must apologize, this was not my 
intention.
Best,

Volker
> Volker,
> I am now starting to take this personally.
> Please review my comments on this matter.  I am not opposed to 
> publicly stating concerns, and your phrasing, "a large part of the 
> council holds" more than adequately addressed the concern I did have.
> It was couching the view of the Council as the product of a 
> deliberative process that I did not like.  I am not arguing the board 
> governance committee's decision, just its rationale.
> If I am too thin skinned on this matter or have misunderstood the 
> intent, I apologize for being wrong, but I do not want to be said to 
> be standing in he way of a request from the Council for a review of 
> the way the decision was made.  It was, indeed, a view of a large part 
> of the Council.
> Berard
>
>     --------- Original Message ---------
>     Subject: Re: [council] FYI: NCSG Letter to the Board re.
>     Reconsideration Request 13-3
>     From: "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     Date: 6/27/13 5:13 am
>     To: "Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>
>     Cc: "John Berard" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Jonathan Robinson"
>     <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "WUKnoben"
>     <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
>     <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>     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
>
>     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.

--
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.