RE: [council] RE: Did we receive a briefing paper on the process for amendments to sTLD charters?

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

<since it doesn't even mention sTLDs it's difficult to see how it even comes 
close to fulfilling what was asked for. >

Which is why I didn't think we'd received the referenced paper.





________________________________
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 9:31 AM
To: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] RE: Did we receive a briefing paper on the process for 
amendments to sTLD charters?

Understood. Not sure it was ever communicated that way to the Council as
a whole, and since it doesn't even mention sTLDs it's difficult to see
how it even comes close to fulfilling what was asked for.


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [council] RE: Did we receive a briefing paper on the
> process for amendments to sTLD charters?
> From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, September 30, 2011 8:17 am
> To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "krosette@xxxxxxx" <krosette@xxxxxxx>,
> "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> You are not going to get a disagreement from me that this paper is 
> fundamentally flawed, but I am only conveying the answer I got when I asked 
> the question back in March, that staff thought this paper addressed the 
> particular resolution Kristina pointed to.
> Â
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
> Â
> Â
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 8:33 AM
> To: Neuman, Jeff
> Cc: krosette@xxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] RE: Did we receive a briefing paper on the process for 
> amendments to sTLD charters?
>
> Â
> Jeff,
>
> That is not the briefing paper for amending sTLD charters. It refers
> only to the new Community gTLDs. There are some similarities between
> sTLDs and Community gTLDs, but there are major differences in their
> structure and how they were/are allocated. IMO, amending a sTLD charter
> is a fundamentally different issue than the Community gTLD Change
> discussed in the paper you refer to.
>
> Tim
>
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: [council] RE: Did we receive a briefing paper on the process
> > for amendments to sTLD charters?
> > From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Thu, September 29, 2011 5:04 pm
> > To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>,
> > "'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Kristina,
> > Ã��Â
> > A paper was posted on February 21, 2011 
> > (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/explantory-memo-community-change-request-21feb11-en.pdf);
> >  which was heavily objected to on a number of grounds by the RySG.��  
> > In our view, there were a number of flawed assumptions in there as well as 
> > too heavy a hand by ICANN.Ã��Â
> >
> > I am not sure if someone from staff forwarded this to you, so I thought I 
> > would and send it to the Council. �� At a few of the meetings, I 
> > brought this up at the council level (in San Francisco in particular), but 
> > the Council did not seem interested in taking it up at the time (or maybe 
> > they weren&#8217;t paying attention J)
> > Ã��Â
> > Jeffrey J. Neuman
> > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
> >
> >
> > Ã��Â
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
> > Ã��Â
> >
> > Ã��Â
> > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> > Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
> > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:48 AM
> > To: 'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
> > Subject: [council] Did we receive a briefing paper on the process for 
> > amendments to sTLD charters?
> >
> >
> > Ã��Â
> > Ã��Â
> >
> > All,
> >
> > Ã��Â
> >
> > I was just reading the BGC's December 9, 2010 recommendation on the .jobs 
> > Charter Compliance Coalition reconsideration request and came across this 
> > footnote on page 12:Ã��Â
> >
> > Ã��Â
> >
> > Ã��Â
> >
> > 4 The BGC also thinks that the Board should address the need for a process 
> > to evaluate amendments that may have the effect of changing, or seeking to 
> > change, an sTLD Charter or Stated Purpose of a sponsored, restricted or 
> > community-based TLD. Because such a process may impact gTLDs greatly and is 
> > a policy issue, the GNSO is the natural starting point for evaluating such 
> > a process. We therefore further recommend that the Board direct the CEO to 
> > create a briefing paper for the GNSO to consider on this matter, and for 
> > the GNSO to determine whether a policy development process should be 
> > commenced.Ã��Â
> >
> > Ã��Â
> >
> > I don't recall receiving any such briefing paper.��  Did we receive 
> > one?��  If so, would the relevant staff person mind sending me a copy 
> > of it?��  Thanks!
> >
> > Ã��Â
> >
> > K
> >
> > Ã��Â
> >
> >
> >
>
>