RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition

["Winterfeldt, Brian J." <brian.winterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Colleagues:

Thanks to Avri and Tony for taking the pen on this high-level statement and to 
Jonathan, James, Phil, and others who have provided additional comments and 
edits.  I think the substance of the statement reads well, and I personally 
support the statement as currently drafted (including Jonathan and James' 
proposed edits, as well as the clean-up edits noted by Phil Corwin), which 
makes clear, as it should, that the statement is coming from the Council and 
not the GNSO itself.  I shared the statement with IPC members, some of whom 
have expressed support, and none of whom have expressed opposition.

Best regards,

Brian

Brian J. Winterfeldt
Head of Internet Practice
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
2900 K Street NW, North Tower - Suite 200 / Washington, DC 20007-5118
p / (202) 625-3562 f / (202) 339-8244

575 Madison Avenue / New York, NY 10022-2585
p / (212) 940.6762  f / (212) 894.5585
brian.winterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:brian.winterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> / 
www.kattenlaw.com<http://www.kattenlaw.com/>


________________________________
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.orgOn<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.orgOn> 
Behalf OfPhil Corwin
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 8:39:50 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & 
Canada)
To: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; 'David Cake'; 'Tony 
Holmes'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition
Thanks Jonathan. I'll pass this along to the BC and get back to you ASAP.

Best, Philip

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 3:12 AM
To: Phil Corwin; 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; 
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition

Thanks Philip,

Regarding the two questions below, my understanding is as follows:


1.       The purpose of the statement is to provide some positive support for 
the work of the CWG in a context where many appeared to be questioning the 
extent or effectiveness of the work of the CWG. It was felt that it would be 
helpful to the CWG (and to the broader community perceptions of the CWG) to 
have a supportive statement by one of the initiating and chartering 
organisations i.e. recognising the effort to date.

2.       The effect of endorsing the statement is primarily to support the view 
of the Council in the proper way i.e. instead of the Council simply issuing the 
statement on its own behalf, the Council appropriately refers the statement to 
constituencies and SGs. A secondary benefit of reviewing the statement is the 
ongoing raising of the awareness of the current status of the work of the CWG 
within the GNSO community such that the GNSO community is in a state of 
readiness to appraise (and ideally support) the final proposal of the CWG when 
it does come out.

They are an interesting pair of questions in the context of my edits to the 
original Tony / Avri draft in that I modified the statement to be more of a 
GNSO Council statement as opposed to a GNSO statement. Arguably, in the former 
case, the Councillors could simply support the statement and the GNSO Council 
issue it. Nevertheless, in my view, it is always preferable to have such a 
statement or similar piece of work referred to the SG / Cs and supported by 
those SG / Cs.

I trust that helps.

Jonathan

From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 23 February 2015 22:59
To: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; 'David Cake'; 'Tony 
Holmes'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition
Importance: High

Jonathan:

Members of the Business Constituency seem to be generally supportive of the 
sentiments contained in the draft Statement. However, I am being asked two 
questions in regard to it:

1.       What is the overall purpose of issuing the Statement?

2.       What is the effect of a Constituency endorsing the statement - and, in 
particular, does it replace the views of any constituency or SG or preclude a 
more nuanced and detailed future statement by them?

Once I have those answers I should be able to indicate whether the BC can 
support and/or be listed as a signatory.

Thanks and best regards,
Philip

PS-This paragraph of the Statement, as modified by you and James, has two typos:
"Given [it's] its co-ordination and policy management role within the GNSO, the 
GNSO Council remains committed to assisting the work within CWG, CCWG and the 
ICG in order that the community may ultimately deliver a sound, comprehensive 
and consensus proposal for the transition of the IANA function and one that 
will uphold the principles set forth in the NTIA announcement, and fully meet 
the needs of the global Internet community."


Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 6:47 AM
To: 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; 
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition

Attached in .pdf if easier to read on some devices.

Jonathan

From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 23 February 2015 11:37
To: 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; 
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition

Thanks Tony & Avri,

Please see my suggested edits contained in the attached redline version.

Jonathan

From: David Cake [mailto:dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 23 February 2015 10:11
To: Tony Holmes; <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> List
Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO statement on IANA transition

I would be happy to support that statement.

David

On 23 Feb 2015, at 3:39 am, Tony Holmes 
<tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

Jonathan/All
Attached is the draft statement compiled by Avri and I on the IANA transition 
process.
Comments welcome.
Regards
Tony

<GNSO statement on the IANA transition - draft.zip>

________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4284/9131 - Release Date: 02/17/15
________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4284/9131 - Release Date: 02/17/15

===========================================================
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information 
intended for the exclusive
use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain 
information that is
proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under 
applicable law.  If you
are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, 
copying, disclosure or
distribution of this information may be subject to legal restriction or 
sanction.  Please notify
the sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended recipients and 
delete the original
message without making any copies.
===========================================================
NOTIFICATION:  Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP is an Illinois limited liability 
partnership that has
elected to be governed by the Illinois Uniform Partnership Act (1997).
===========================================================