Re: [council] Draft Letter to BGC

[Mason Cole <mcole@xxxxxxxxxx>]

As am I.


On Jun 18, 2013, at 12:44 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> 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>:
> 
> 
> 
> 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 
> athttp://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/
>