<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Draft language
I think the impact of presenting this at the public forum is significant and
worth considering.
Jonathan
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Winterfeldt, Brian
Sent: 28 June 2012 11:47
To: 'John Berard'
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Draft language
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
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>
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>
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 <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.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|