Re: [council] Draft Letter to BGC

[Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I likewise support sending something; preferred the original wording,
but can accept this compromise.

--Wendy

On 06/18/2013 01:18 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
> Given the discussion we had and the concerns voiced by many Councillors the 
> least I would like to see is doing nothing. I am supportive of Jeff's 
> original language as well as his amended draft. 
> 
> If some of you have issues with the characterization of the discussion, I 
> propose we can edit the following sentence:
> 
> Original wording:
> 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.
> 
> Proposed language:
> Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of 
> Reconsideration Requests in general, some Councillors have voiced concerns 
> with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the 
> Recommendation.
> 
> By taking out the "we", this cannot be understood as a Council position.
> 
> Hope this helps.
> 
> Thomas
> 
> Am 18.06.2013 um 18:50 schrieb John Berard <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> 
>> It is near 1 pm Eastern on June 18.  What does the letter look like now?
>>
>> Berard
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jun 18, 2013, at 10:42 AM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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] 
>>> 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] 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] 
>>> 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
>>>  
> 
> 


-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx +1 617.863.0613
Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
http://wendy.seltzer.org/
https://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/