Re: [council] Draft language

[John Berard <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Brian,

Note my boldface suggestion:

The GNSO Council wishes to express its disappointment with the Board's decision 
to meet in a closed session on Saturday 23 June to vote on a topic which was 
slated for discussion at the public forum on Thursday, January 28, 2012 
:http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2. 
 
ICANN staff had placed the topic of the renewal of the .com Agreement on the 
Thursday public forum agenda some time ago, and this item remains on the public 
forum agenda tomorrow.  We are aware that of a number of GNSO constituencies, 
stakeholder groups and/or Advisory Committees that were looking forward to 
addressing this subject with the board and the ICANN community at the Public 
Forum.  However, neither the GNSO Council nor its constituencies, stakeholder 
groups or liaisons were aware of the Board's closed session and adoption of the 
draft agreement
 
This comment is not with regard to the merits of the Board’s action, it is for 
the constituencies or stakeholder groups to highlight those as they see fit.  
However, we, the GNSO Council, find the process followed by the Board to be 
objectionable at a time when we are all being urged to advocate for the ICANN 
model at time of increased global scrutiny, and its is therefore imperative 
that the Board hold itself to the highest standards of transparency and 
accountability that it is mandated to uphold.

Sent from my iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 28, 2012, at 10:52 AM, "Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:

> Jeff
>  
> As requested, how about the below draft:
>  
> The GNSO Council wishes to express its disappointment with the Board's 
> decision to meet in a closed session on Saturday 23 June to vote on a topic 
> which was slated for discussion at the public forum on Thursday, January 28, 
> 2012 : 
> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2. 
>  
> ICANN staff had placed the topic of the renewal of the .com Agreement on the 
> Thursday public forum agenda some time ago, and this item remains on the 
> public forum agenda tomorrow.  We are aware that of a number of GNSO 
> constituencies, stakeholder groups and/or Advisory Committees that were 
> looking forward to addressing this subject with the board and the ICANN 
> community at the Public Forum.  However, neither the GNSO Council nor its 
> constituencies, stakeholder groups or liaisons were aware of the Board's 
> closed session and adoption of the draft agreement
>  
> This comment is not with regard to the merits of the Board’s action, it is 
> for the constituencies or stakeholder groups to highlight those as they see 
> fit.  However, we, the GNSO Council, find the process followed by the Board 
> to be objectionable at a time when the private sector is being urged to 
> advocate for the ICANN model, and its is therefore imperative that the Board 
> hold itself to the highest standards of transparency and accountability that 
> it is mandated to uphold.
>  
> Hope helpful.
>  
> Kind regards
>  
>  
>  
> Brian J. Winterfeldt  
> Partner
> bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> Steptoe
>  
> +1 202 429 6260 direct
> +1 202 903 4422 mobile
> +1 202 429 3902 fax
> Steptoe & Johnson LLP
> 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
> Washington, DC 20036
> www.steptoe.com
>  
>  
> This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm 
> Steptoe & Johnson LLP that may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are 
> not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, distribute, or use this 
> information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify 
> the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message.
>