Re: [council] Draft Letter to BGC

[Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

All, 
I have merged the latest proposals into an updated draft.

Best
Thomas

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, some Councillors have voiced 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 thoroughly review the 
rationale of the Reconsideration Request and consider deferral of the 
publication of the rationale 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.n.

Sincerely,
 
Jonathan Robinson
GNSO Council Chair


Am 18.06.2013 um 21:32 schrieb 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/