RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC

["Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This has crossed wires with what I wrote in attempting to distil the
conversation so far.

 

Since it is a patchwork of the conversation on list so far, I am OK to use
this instead.

 

Jonathan

 

From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 18 June 2013 20:37
To: Wendy Seltzer
Cc: John Berard; <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Neuman, Jeff; Bruce Tonkin;
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] Draft Letter to BGC

 

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/recommendat
ion-ncsg-16may13-en.pdf>
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendati
on-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/recommendati
on-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/