Re: [council] Comments regarding the strawman
Thanks Brian. We were invited to share and discuss information, which we did
-- not to renegotiate already approved mechanisms. I would dismiss the logic
that by attending, the RrSG agreed with any concerns about the status quo or in
fact were there to negotiate.
On Jan 2, 2013, at 8:51 AM, Winterfeldt, Brian wrote:
> Dear Mason:
> Thank you for repeating and clarifying the RrSG position. I am happy to
> repeat the IPC position, for convenience to the list, and add some personal
> The IPC clearly supports the strawman and limited preventative registration
> proposals. We are disappointed at the level of disparagement of these
> proposals on the Council in light of the fact that representatives from each
> stakeholder group participated in Brussels and Los Angeles. Compromises in
> the strawman proposal emerged from give and take negotiation among
> representatives of all stakeholder groups. Stakeholder groups that now
> assert that rights protection mechanisms should not have been revisited at
> all cast doubt on the good faith of the negotiators they sent to Brussels and
> Los Angeles.
> Looking at the transcript from our teleconference, I realize that I used the
> word “consensus” and that particular word carries a bit of baggage in the
> ICANN community, especially with respect to mandatory “consensus policies”
> referenced in the various contracts in this space. No one is suggesting that
> “consensus policies” were reached or even discussed in the meetings with Mr.
> Chehadé. Rather, quite the opposite, these were implementation meetings, not
> policy-making meetings.
> In addition, no one is suggesting that participation in the meetings with Mr.
> Chehadé formulates complete acceptance of the proposals. Personally, I think
> the primary point—as articulated by Mr. Chehadé—is that stakeholder
> representatives participated in a collaborative process focused strictly on
> common ground to advance the discussion on implementation solutions. Rather
> than moving forward together as Mr. Chehadé has asked, it is disappointing to
> see this entire process called into question and the entirety of strawman
> proposal disparaged by Council and stakeholder representatives.
> Finally, could you please clarify the statement that the RrSG would not at
> all characterize any meeting on the strawman as a negotiation? Are we to
> understand that RrSG representatives sat on the sidelines and were there just
> to “listen to staff’s input”?
> Best regards,
> Brian J. Winterfeldt
> From: Mason Cole <mcole@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: December 28, 2012, 11:33:53 AM EST
> To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx List" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [council] Comments regarding the strawman
> All --
> I don't at all mean to pick on Brian personally, but I became aware earlier
> of a news article covering our most recent council meeting. (A side note: we
> should remember that the media and others listen in on our call, and our
> conversations are public and could end up in news coverage.)
> The article says:
> Brian Winterfeldt, Steptoe & Johnson, an IPC representative on the GNSO
> Council, said that the IPC does not agree with all points of the draft
> response. The IPC understood the strawman proposal to be the product of
> negotiations that resulted in a consensus among the participants—including
> representatives from all ICANN constituencies, Winterfeldt said.
> “Stakeholders who now say that rights protections should not be revisited
> cast doubt on the good faith of negotiations.”
> For avoidance of doubt, I want to restate the RrSG's understandings. Our
> representatives in the meeting were there at Fadi's request to discuss the
> trademark clearinghouse and to listen to staff's input on the strawman. They
> would not at all characterize that (or any meeting on the strawman) as a
> negotiation, nor would they say consensus exists on the content of the
> proposals. It was clear there would be an opportunity for comment following
> the meetings. Our participation in those discussions can't be presumed to be
> acceptance of the proposals or the process by which they were considered.
> I made that point on our 20 December call, I believe, but thank you for
> indulging my repeating it.