RE: [council] Draft language

[<Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks to David, Alan, John and Brian - this looks good to me.

Cheers
Mary

Sent from a mobile device; please excuse brevity and any grammatical or 
typographical errors.

"Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Please see revised draft below with correction suggested by Alan and with 
John?s suggestion which I think is helpful.

Kind regards,

Brian J. Winterfeldt
Partner
bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Steptoe

From: John Berard [mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 5:40 AM
To: Winterfeldt, Brian
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Draft language

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, although the GNSO Council and its constituencies were aware of 
the Board's intent to discuss the contract, we were not aware of its intent to 
approve the contract at its closed session.


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.




On Jun 28, 2012, at 10:52 AM, "Winterfeldt, Brian" 
<bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://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.