Re: [council] FW: Rec6 CWG Response to the Board Request

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

I think the point is that the Board should have directed the clarification 
questions to the gnso and alac communities to get the responses and not a 
working group of those communities.  Logic would dictate that the gnso and alac 
would delegate the work to the working group (with oversight from the 
respective councils).  This would ensure that when the board gets something 
back, it would be supported by the community and not just individuals that may 
not even be able to represent their own companies, much less their 
constituencies or stake-holder groups.

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx



----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 05:01 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [council] FW: Rec6 CWG Response to the Board Request


Hello Jeff,

>>  I am a little puzzled as to why there was direct communication from the 
>> working group to the board and vice versa that did not involve the community

There was a bit of both at Cartagena actually.  There was a public session 
which I think I chaired, and also a chance given to the working group members 
to explain their positions to a few Board members (certainly not a quorum of 
Board members).   The Board asked as a follow up to get a formal response 
following Cartagena on any revised position.  

Any feedback from the Council would be most welcome - especially as input into 
the GAC/ICANN Board meeting in late Feb 2011. 

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin