RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC

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

I am fine with this.

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


From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 3:37 PM
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/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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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> 
[mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<http://crediblecontext.com>]
Sent: 17 June 2013 23:25
To: Neuman, Jeff; 'jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://melbourneit.com.au>]
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



--
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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/