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

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

Jeff,

 

It seems to me that you should determine whether the RySG supports your concern 
just like Mary did with the NCSG.

 

I, for one, think what you are proposing would impede the Council.  If every 
time an amendment is made there needs to be comment period, where does it end? 
If we cannot trust our representatives with some common sense, then we have 
bigger problems.

 

Chuck

 

From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 12:18 PM
To: Mary Wong; GNSO Council; Gomes, Chuck
Subject: RE: [council] FW: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft 
letter)

 

Thanks Mary.  I cannot post to the Council list, so I ask you to post my reply.

 

I appreciate your sentiments, but I think the language is too broad and may be 
used by some for purposes other than which you intended.  Perhaps these things 
do not need to go out for a “public comment” period as we normally think of 
those words, but there should be time to discuss with our stakeholder groups 
especially if it relates to policy.  The fact that your proposed amendment was 
discussed by the NCSG prior to meeting is great for your SG, but it was never 
discussed with our SG and in fact, the resolution does not even really relate 
to the substance of string similarity.  If anything, it should not have been an 
amendment, but rather should have been a wholly new motion and separately 
addressed.  We need to focus on issues as a community.  We need to have a cross 
stakeholder group list where these issues can be discussed in the open rather 
than being surprised at a Council meeting that one SG wants an amendment added 
to a motion.  I will ask, as I do every year, for a new mailing list to be set 
up that facilitates true cross-community communication.

 

The other issue is that when the GNSO Council sends a letter, or even the Chair 
sends a letter, there is an assumption and perception that the entire GNSO 
Community supports the substance of what has been communicated.  One only needs 
to look at ICANN staff reports that refer to letters  that have been submitted 
in the past to see this is the case.  So, if others non-GNSO community members 
are going to assume that when such a letter is sent that it is supported by the 
GNSO community, isn’t there an obligation by the GNSO Council to make sure that 
it actually is.  

 

My goal is not to impede the Council, but rather to ensure the appropriate 
level of feedback from each of the SGs.  Does that mean things may take more 
time? Sure. But I have yet to see any circumstance the Council has acted on 
that was of sufficient urgency that at least some time period of consultation 
could not be afforded.


Thanks for your consideration.

 

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: Mary Wong [mailto:MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 11:36 AM
To: GNSO Council; Chuck Gomes
Cc: Neuman, Jeff
Subject: Re: [council] FW: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft 
letter)

 

Thanks for forwarding this, Chuck.

 

Jeff and everyone, as the person who proposed the "FURTHER RESOLVED" language 
in the resolution, let me explain that my intent was most definitely not to 
elevate the Council's role, much less to lessen the importance and input from 
the community that the Council represents. Although this particular resolution 
(and accompanying letter) dealt with an issue of huge importance to everyone, I 
was concerned that it could be taken in the future as an indication that 
everything the Council sends out to any ICANN Board/staff member, constituent 
or other body must necessarily first be subject to a public comment period.

 

In other words, my thought was that the Council should not be impeded in its 
discussions or decisions by a "requirement" that, while not mandated by any 
bylaw or operating rule/procedure, becomes - through time and/or practice - a 
rule, especially as Council letters may concern a wide variety of topics (from 
coordination with other ACSOs to substantive major issues like this particular 
one). 

 

I fully agree that the Council not only represents the GNSO community, but must 
act in full consultation with it and that each Councillor ought to act in the 
best interests of the community he/she represents. This is especially so in the 
new GNSO environment, where the Council is clearly not supposed to be a 
legislative body but more of a management team. 

 

Finally, you may be interested to know that my addition to the resolution was 
discussed among, and approved by, the NCSG prior to the Council meeting. As 
such, it was something I proposed as a representative of the views of the 
community that I was elected by!

 

I hope this clarifies matters somewhat.

 

Cheers

Mary 

 

 

Mary W S Wong

Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs

Franklin Pierce Law Center

Two White Street

Concord, NH 03301

USA

Email: mwong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Phone: 1-603-513-5143

Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php

Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: 
http://ssrn.com/author=437584



>>> 

From: 

"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

To:

"GNSO Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

CC:

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

Date: 

6/15/2010 10:58 AM

Subject: 

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

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.

 

 


  <http://www.piercelaw.edu/>