RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I do not think this new wording characterizes the discussion that we had last 
week.  Adding a footnote to the rationale would not solve any of the issues 
that were raised, and in fact would only introduce new (even worse) wrinkles.

I believe a rewording to make it more in line with what Alan had suggested is 
more preferable (Changes in last paragraph):

Dear Board Governance Committee,

                As you may be aware, the GNSO Council had the opportunity to 
review the BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which can be 
found at 
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendation-ncsg-16may13-en.pdf
 (Recommendation) during its regular monthly Council call on June 16, 2013.

Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of 
Reconsideration Requests in general, we have some key concerns with the 
implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. 
 These concerns were expressed during the Council call and on the Council 
mailing list and centered around the perceived potential impact of the 
Recommendation on the GNSO and more broadly, the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder 
model.

                We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to defer the publication 
of the rationale of the Reconsideration Request until such time that a more 
complete discussion on this matter can take place with the community in July at 
the ICANN meeting in Durban.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Robinson
GNSO Council Chair



Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs


From: Zahid Jamil [mailto:zahid@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 11:23 AM
To: Winterfeldt, Brian; owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: John Berard; Neuman, Jeff; bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Draft Letter to BGC

Fully support this rewording.

Zahid Jamil
Barrister-at-law
Jamil & Jamil
Barristers-at-law
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
Cell: +923008238230
Tel: +92 213 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
Fax: +92 213 5655026
www.jamilandjamil.com<http://www.jamilandjamil.com>

Notice / Disclaimer
This message contains confidential information and its contents are being 
communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended 
recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please 
notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by 
mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the 
intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute 
privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The 
reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever 
of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by 
electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use 
of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & 
Jamil is prohibited.


*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink 
***
________________________________
From: "Winterfeldt, Brian" 
<bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:17:51 +0000
To: 
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx%3ccouncil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: 
john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx%3cjohn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>;
 
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx%3cJeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>;
 
bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx%3cbruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC

Dear all:

The IPC does not agree that the BGC's rationale need be thrown out.  As an 
alternative, you might consider the following language in a footnote to the 
rationale, which we would have vetted with the full Council in due course, but 
for the intense pace at which this conversation is unfolding:

"This analysis is limited to consideration of whether the Board violated ICANN 
policy, and specifically the policies set forth in Annex A, Section 9 of the 
ICANN Bylaws, which require consultation with the GNSO Council where a 
PDP-developed recommendation is not approved by the Board.  It is beyond the 
scope of this Recommendation to consider whether, how and when the Board 
engages the GNSO Council in discussions following GNSO council statements or 
other actions outside the PDP process, and this Recommendation expresses no 
opinion on such matters."

Thank you,

Brian

Brian J. Winterfeldt
Partner
bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Steptoe
________________________________
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.orgOn<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.orgOn> 
Behalf OfJonathan Robinson
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:42:15 AM
To: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 'Neuman, Jeff'; 
'Bruce Tonkin'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC
John,

Good that the short version makes sense.  It's often the case as you well know!

I felt it was clear in the Council meeting of 13/06/2013n that I understood 
that a formal letter would need to be sent on behalf of the Council and that 
this was what we were discussing.
I haven't cross-checked against the transcript.  However, I did cover this in 
my 16/06/2013 summary of the discussion and outcomes and didn't receive any 
objections.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily require a vote for us to take action.

We have an unusually tight deadline in that the BGC is meeting today at 21h00 
UTC.  If we accept your objection, we do nothing, at least before the BGC meets.
If we are to do something before the BGC meets, we need to do it fast.

Personally, I am OK to put my name next to a draft substantially similar to 
what Jeff has outlined below but clearly, need support from the Council if I am 
to do so.
Is there a variation on what Jeff has written that you feel you could support 
reasonably well in advance of the 21h00 deadline?

Thanks,


Jonathan

From: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 17 June 2013 23:25
To: Neuman, Jeff; 'jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; 
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC

Jeff, et. al.,

Even though short, this note makes more of what happened than I heard.  In as 
much as it was an open discussion, we didn't hear from all and we certainly 
took no votes, either on a proposal, motion or sense of the Council.

And I was the guy who coined the term "executivication" of decision-making at 
ICANN.  I see the problem, but not the basis for a solution.

It is true that the Board committee's decision has sparked a bit of a 
controversy (the transcript of the meeting shows that), but there is no basis 
for any "ask," except perhaps that the full Board draw its own conclusion as to 
whether the decision undermines the community as has been suggested.  Asking 
for this to be on our joint meeting agenda for Durban is totally within our 
purview, too.

I guess that rolls up to being an objection.

Cheers,

Berard

--------- Original Message ---------
Subject: [council] Draft Letter to BGC
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: 6/17/13 1:09 pm
To: "'jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx'" 
<jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, "'Bruce Tonkin'" 
<Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Bruce,

Thanks for forwarding this note on to the Council.  Given the timing 
sensitivities, I would propose the Council tomorrow sending a note like the one 
below.  Any objections?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Board Governance Committee,

                As you may be aware, the GNSO Council had the opportunity to 
review the BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which can be 
found at 
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendation-ncsg-16may13-en.pdf
 (Recommendation) during its regular monthly Council call on June 16, 2013.

Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of 
Reconsideration Requests in general, we have some key concerns with the 
implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. 
 These concerns were expressed during the Council call and on the Council 
mailing list and centered around the perceived potential impact of the 
Recommendation on the GNSO and more broadly, the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder 
model.

                We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to withdraw the arguments 
used to support the ultimate rejection of the Reconsideration Request, and 
replace the rationale with something more in line with the scope of 
Reconsideration Requests as outlined in the ICANN Bylaws.  In addition, we ask 
that we continue the dialogue on the this particular matter in July at the 
ICANN meeting in Durban.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Robinson
GNSO Council Chair


Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 7:02 AM
To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising 
from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... )

Bruce,

Thank-you for flagging this.

We will endeavour to provide you with this.

Jonathan

From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 16 June 2013 23:52
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising 
from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... )

Hello Jonathan,

For information- the Board Governance Committee is meeting on Tuesday 18 June 
at 21:00 UTC time.

A review of the rationale for reconsideration request 13.3 is on the agenda.   
Any materials you can provide before then would be useful.

I am expecting that the new gTLD program committee will then consider 
reconsideration request 13.3 at its meeting on 25 June 2013.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin