RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC

[Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alan,

Please refer back to Bruce Tonkin email of 17 June where he refers to a
review of the rationale to take place at today's meeting.

Jonathan
On 18 Jun 2013 20:08, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  Jeff, isn't the rationale already published? I thought that what was at
> issue here was the Board's (ie the new GTLD Comm) ratification of it.
>
> Alan
>
> At 18/06/2013 11:27 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>
> 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 <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
>
> 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 >
> *Sender: * owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Date: *Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:17:51 +0000
> *To: * council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Cc: * john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<bruce.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
> *Steptoe
> ------------------------------
> *From:* owner-council@gnso.icann.orgOn Behalf OfJonathan Robinson
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:42:15 AM
> *To:* john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Neuman, Jeff'; 'Bruce Tonkin';
> 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<john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]
>
> *Sent:* 17 June 2013 23:25
> *To:* Neuman, Jeff; 'jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'Bruce Tonkin';
> 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 > Date: 6/17/13 1:09 pm To:
> "'jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx'" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx >, "'Bruce Tonkin'" 
> <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx " <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<owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]
> On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 7:02 AM To:
> 'Bruce Tonkin'; 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<Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]
> Sent: 16 June 2013 23:52 To: 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
>
>