[council] Re: Agenda - 11 June 2013 - New gTLD Program Committee

[Steve Crocker <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff,

I think you're asking the New gTLD Program Committee to defer voting on the 
BGC's recommendation.  This matter is not in front of the full Board, and the 
full Board isn't meeting until June 27.

That said, I'm curious as to the substance of your objection.  Have you written 
anything about it?

Thanks,

Steve

On Jun 5, 2013, at 10:16 PM, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Bruce,
> 
> Am I correct that the Board will be discussing and adopting the BGC's 
> recommendation on the NCSG Reconsideration Request?
> 
> As you know, the GNSO has scheduled this item to discuss on our next Council 
> call on the 13th (2 days after the scheduled ICANN Board meeting).  A number 
> of us on the GNSO completely disagree with the rationale that was used to 
> justify the outcome (even if we do not dispute the outcome).  We believe that 
> the BGC's rationale will undermine the entire bottom-up multi-stakeholder 
> model (as in my previous e-mail to the council which I have attached).  
> 
> We therefore respectfully ask that the ICANN Board delay any decision on this 
> reconsideration request until it has had time to listen to the GNSO Council 
> and its members on our thoughts about this decision.  I personally believe if 
> the Board adopts this recommendation (more particularly the rationale for the 
> recommendation), the Board will have not officially put the nail in the 
> coffin for the Reconsideration process as an accountability measure, but will 
> have also the multi-stakeholder bottom up model as we know it.
> 
> I have included Fadi and Steve (which I have rarely if ever done before) on 
> this e-mail to stress the importance of this issue and plea for the Board to 
> forgo any definitive action on this request until such time that we can be 
> heard.  We also ask whether anyone from the BGC could be available to discuss 
> this issue with us on the GNSO Council call. 
> 
> P.S.....I do want to stress that Neustar takes no position as to whether the 
> Trademark Claims plus 50 should or should not be in place as an RPM.  Rather, 
> we strongly disagree with the assumptions and fundamentally-flawed rationale 
> in the BGC's recommendation.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
> 46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166
> Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / 
> jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx  / www.neustar.biz 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 4:14 AM
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [council] Agenda - 11 June 2013 - New gTLD Program Committee
> 
> 
> From:  
> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-new-gtld-11jun13-en.htm
> 
> 
> 11 June 2013
> 
> 
> Consent Agenda:
> 
> * Approval of Minutes
> 
> Main Agenda:
> 
> *  BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3
> 
> *  Info Discussion on ALAC Statement on IDN Variants
> 
> *  Plural vs. Singular
> 
> *  Any Other Business
> 
> <Mail Attachment.eml>