RE: [council] Annual Meeting now Tunisia?

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

 I am not sure why all the attack, but, as I said during the debate (in
which I agreed with the Council to have 3 reps), I do not believe that the
Board was arbitrary in deciding to have 2 members rather than 3.  Remember,
that is why we got rid of the Whereas clauses that were drafted for the
resolution.  Again, for the avoidance of any doubt, I did support the
resolution.

You and many others may disagree with what the Board did.  That does not
make what it did arbitrary.  And it does not mean we should ignore the
Bylaws because we disagree.  I understand that it may be difficult, but
these are the Bylaws we have to live by for the time being.

Jeff
  

-----Original Message-----
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP [mailto:mcade@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 10:32 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; Bruce Tonkin; council@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Annual Meeting now Tunisia?


Jeff, this is interesting but not really helpful in addressing the concern
which the consensus of the Council represents.

Why are we not challenging the arbitrary nature of changing the bylaws in
this nature, without a bottom up consensus from the affected party -- the
Council?  By law changes have to be challengeable as well...:-)

The constituencies, other than the gTLD constituency are large and need the
broad based representation which 3 reps provide.  That may be the case in
the future for the gTLD registries in the future. But, in any case, the
consensus of the Council is clear, and I would think that you would want to
support it.

202-255-7348c
mcade@xxxxxxx


-----Original Message-----
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 10:17 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP; Bruce Tonkin; council@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Annual Meeting now Tunisia?


Actually, I believe Bruce's approach is the way we should approach this.
Just because the Board has not responded to our resolution, does not mean
(and call me optimistic) that the Board was ignoring us.  As much as we may
want the Bylaws to change, although we pass a resolution requesting a
change, there is no requirement that the ICANN Board actually respond to
such a resolution.

On what basis would we have to file a reconsideration request.  If I am
correct, we would have to show that the Board's action of refusing our
recommendation to change the Bylaws, was itself a violation of the current
bylaws.  In other words, I believe we would have to demonstrate that the
Board, under the current bylaws, cannot refuse a request from us to change
the Bylaws.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but there is no way we can actually
succeed in such a reconsideration request.

I believe the way to proceed is to act as if the Bylaws are not going to
change in accordance with our request.  If they do, great, we will have our
reserve.  If the Board does not amend the bylaws, then we will have to
accept that outcome and move on with our substantive business.  

In the meantime, I will alert my constituency and begin election
proceedings.

Jeff


-----Original Message-----
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP [mailto:mcade@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 9:17 PM
To: Bruce Tonkin; council@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Annual Meeting now Tunisia?


Bruce and fellow Councilors

I disagree with this approach, which seems to be to say that it is
acceptable for the Board to ignore the request from Council. Council should
request that the Board acknowledge our resolution, and give an affirmative
agreement to the extension which we requested to extend the change until
after there is a assessment by Council, after a year of operation as the
gNSO.

What is the status of our resolution to the Board which laid out the
Council's views? Finally, IF the board refuses to accept our recommendation,
I believe that we should file a reconsideration request.

202-255-7348c
mcade@xxxxxxx


-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 8:50 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Annual Meeting now Tunisia?


Hello Jeff,

Thanks for alerting us to the date of the 2003 Annual meeting.

Note also that under the transition article of the bylaws:
Article XX, section 5, clause 8:

"In the absence of further action on the topic by the New Board, each of
the GNSO constituencies shall select two representatives to the GNSO
Council no later than 1 October 2003, and shall provide the ICANN
Secretary written notice of its selections. Each constituency shall
designate one of those representatives to serve a one-year term, and one
to serve a two year-term. Each successor to those representatives shall
serve a two-year term."

The 1 October 2003 date looks unachievable.

I recommend each constituency commence arrangements to elect the two
GNSO representatives as above, with the aim of completing the process by
the end of the Annual Meeting in Tunisia.  I also recommend that each
constituency  select an additional representative as a reserve, should
the Board approve the recommendation from the GNSO Council to allow 3
representatives until such time as the performance of the GNSO Council
can be reviewed.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin

-----Original Message-----
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Saturday, 20 September 2003 6:55 AM
To: 'council@xxxxxxxx'
Subject: [council] Annual Meeting now Tunisia?


All,

I noticed that the ICANN Board is now proposing to make the Tunisia
meeting the "Annual Meeting" of the Board of Directors
(http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-12sep03.htm).  

That being the case, assuming that the Board does not reverse its
decision on having 2 representatives, I guess the assumption is that
each constituency will be required to hold new elections for the 2
representatives and have those reps in place by the end of the Tunisia
meeting?  

In the way of guidance from the other constituencies, I was wondering if
you all are holding elections in the next few weeks for new Council
members.  In addition, technically, even if 3 reps are allowed I believe
the bylaws call for all new elections.

Please advise.

Thanks. 


Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
Director, Law & Policy 
NeuStar, Inc. 
Loudoun Tech Center 
46000 Center Oak Plaza 
Building X 
Sterling, VA 20166 
p: (571) 434-5772 
f:  (571) 434-5735 
e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx 
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for
the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This
message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and
as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is
not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received
this e-mail message and any attachments hereto in error and that any
review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.