[council] FW: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter)

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am forwarded this to the Council list as requested by Jeff.

 

Chuck

 

From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 10:19 AM
To: bcute@xxxxxxxxxxxx; becky.burr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Cheryl Langdon-Orr;
Gomes, Chuck
Subject: FW: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter)

 

All,

 

Can I ask that this comment is submitted to the Accountability and
Review Team?  It is submitted in response to the GNSO Resolution on
String Similarity.(
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jun10-en.htm) and
more particularly to the specific GNSO Resolution in posting the letter
out for comment.  

 

Chuck - Can you also please post to the Council for me as well?


Thanks.

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy

________________________________

The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for
the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential
and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you
have received this e-mail message in error and any review,
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately and delete the original message.

 

 

From: Neuman, Jeff 
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 10:15 AM
To: string-similarity-amendment@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Neuman, Jeff
Subject: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter)

 

All,

 

This comment is being submitted in my personal capacity and not on
behalf of my employer, Neustar, Inc., or the Registries Stakeholder
Group.  In addition, my comment is not on the draft letter itself, as
those comments, if any, will be submitted through the RySG, but rather
relates to the resolution passed by the GNSO Council requesting that the
letter go out for public comment.

 

More specifically, at the last minute, and without any discussion by the
community, the GNSO Council included the following language:

 

"FURTHER RESOLVED, that this motion shall not serve as a precedent
requiring the GNSO Council to adhere to a public comment period
requirement for any future GNSO Council letters."

 

Not only has no explanation been given for this last minute addition,
but I believe the statement is fundamentally flawed on a number of
different levels.  It is not the GNSO Council's role to decide what does
and does not go out for public comment when it relates to policy (as
this letter clearly does).  That role should be specifically reserved
for the GNSO community.  The GNSO Council's authority, as documented in
the Bylaws, is generated from the people and communities in which it
serves.  This has been said over and over again, but the Council is NOT
a legislature that has the right to make proclamations, policy
decisions, etc., without having to go back to the GNSO community. This
is supposed to be a bottom-up organization where policy is developed
through individuals, working groups, experts, etc. and then brought to
the Council for it to manage, not the other way around.  To the extent
that any "letters" are submitted by the Council to any external party,
and those letters relate to policy, then yes they do need to go out for
community input.  If they merely relate to administrative of true
coordination matters, then they do not need to go out for comment.

 

As one of the main catalysts for getting this letter out for public
comment, I thank the Council for doing the right thing and posting this
for comment.  It is what should happen with ALL letters that relate to
policy.  I am not sure why the GNSO Council felt it was necessary to
include this "further resolution", but to the extent that it reflects
the presumption that Council does not have to go back to the community
when it issues letters relating to policy, I ask that the resolution be
stricken from the record.  I ask that this issue be considered by the
appropriate GNSO Improvements team and am also submitting this
separately to the Accountability and Review team for its consideration.
I would also ask that this be discussed at the Council meeting in
Brussels and would be happy to personally address during that meeting.

 

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

 

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166
Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965 /
jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>   /
www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/>       

________________________________

The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for
the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential
and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you
have received this e-mail message in error and any review,
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately and delete the original message.