ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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 
> comments.
> 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
> Brian J. Winterfeldt  
> Partner
> bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Steptoe
> 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.
> Mason

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>