Hi Jeff,

 

I appreciate your concern, but, even if reordered, I think they are still a summary. Given the views stated below, I think this part needs to be cut. Leadership will send an updated draft to list shortly.

 

Thanks,

Greg

 

From: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 2:09 PM
To: DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase@amazon.com>; Thomas Rickert | rickert.law <thomas@rickert.law>; COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG; Ashcraft, Damon <dashcraft@swlaw.com>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [council] Proposed Letter to GAC re: SOI

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.

 

Again, you all (the Council) should make whatever decision you would like.  Is there a way to reorder the statements in the Annex, so that the GAC can more easily see those in favor of maintaining the exemption and those that are not as opposed to a random scattering of the positions?

 

I fully understand your views on creating summaries, but if there is a way to better organize the statements in a more helpful manner, even that small change seems like an improvement.

 

I just want to make things a little easier for them as the Liaison.

 

Sincerely,

Jeff

 

From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Ashcraft, Damon via council <council@gnso.icann.org>
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 4:29 PM
To: DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase@amazon.com>; Thomas Rickert | rickert.law <thomas@rickert.law>; COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG <COUNCIL@gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Letter to GAC re: SOI

 

Greg, Thomas, and Manju,

 

I too agree with Manju’s suggestion that individual SG’s can follow up with the GAC and removing that portion from the letter. We should remove the summary as Manju suggests.  Thanks, Damon

 

J. Damon Ashcraft

office: 602.382.6389 | mobile: 602.510.1640

dashcraft@swlaw.com

Snell & Wilmer

swlaw.com | disclaimer

 

From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of DiBiase, Gregory via council
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 7:11 AM
To: Thomas Rickert | rickert.law <thomas@rickert.law>; COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG
Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Letter to GAC re: SOI

 

[EXTERNAL] council-bounces@gnso.icann.org

 

Thanks everyone for the discussion.  And thanks Jeff for drafting.

 

Seems like we have consensus among Councilors to remove the summary portion of the document. I also like Manju’s suggested paragraph below letting GAC know they can follow up with individual SGs for more clarity on a particular position.

 

Leadership will revise accordingly and recirculate.

 

Thanks,

Greg

 

From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert | rickert.law via council
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 3:02 AM
To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [council] Proposed Letter to GAC re: SOI

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.

 

Hi all,

first of all, thanks to Jeff for putting the draft together. This provides an excellent opportunity for the Council to determine how to deal with situation such as this.

 

Writing summaries is never a completely neutral exercise. What is left out, what is kept in, how arguments are shortened always bears the risk of misunderstandings and allegations of bias.

Therefore, I also think it is better to leave out the summaries and just state who took a what position and then point to the report so that the interested reader can go straight to the source.

 

Best,

Thomas

 

Von: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> im Auftrag von Tomslin Samme-Nlar via council <council@gnso.icann.org>
Datum: Montag, 25. März 2024 um 05:08
An: 陳曼茹 Manju Chen <manju@nii.org.tw>
Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>
Betreff: Re: [council] Proposed Letter to GAC re: SOI

Hi all,

 

Speaking in my personal capacity, I think the Council often strives to keep out of our official communication to the GAC anything that appears to be airing dirty laundry, whether in writing or verbally. And I believe that is why the council hoped a simple statement pointing to the official report would do it. 

 

Having said that, I really like the first part of the letter. So, in light of the feedback so far, I think we should remove the summaries section as Manju suggested.

 

Warmly,
Tomslin

 

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024, 13:21 陳曼茹 Manju Chen via council, <council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:

Hi,

 

In light of Kurt's comment, I think it's more appropriate we delete the summary of each SG/Cs position and leave it to the SGs and Cs to elaborate on the delicacy of their decisions to the GAC.

 

We can add a paragraph in the letter along the line of 'the Council reckons it is not its place to interpret or explain the position of each SG/Cs on their behalf. In the case where the GAC finds it needs more details than what is in the CCOICI report, we recommend the GAC to consult with the SGs and Cs directly to better understand the rationale behind their statements and decisions.'

 

Best,

Manju

 

On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 12:10 PM kurt kjpritz.com via council <council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:

Without checking with RySG leadership or my fellow Councillors, I make the following two points regarding the RySG section of the document: 

 

1. The thrust of the RySG position is that ICANN and the bottom-up model legitimacy depends upon transparency. In the draft letter, this point is buried under legalistic arguments regarding attorney-client privilege and the like. This organization is likely to cause any reader to skip down to the next section. The legal arguments might support the main argument but they are not in themselves the main point. Regardless of how the RySG ordered the points in its statement, the main thrust is about the legitimacy of the model. I think your portrayal obscures that clear message. 

 

2. During the ICANN meeting, it was reported that the GAC criticised the CPH for voting to defeat the so-called compromise recommendations of the CCOICI. This criticism came after the RySG briefed the GAC, indicating agreement with the GAC position on the need for transparency and explaining that the ’no vote’ was in furtherance of that cause, i.e., that the CPH intended to work in partnership with the GAC to develop and implement an appropriate set of transparency requirements. The fact that this intention was apparently missed by some GAC members was disheartening to the RySG leaders, and a correction has been planned. This draft letter to the GAC must include this point, that the no vote was the first step in the next, meaningful phase to the transparency discussion. The letter cannot merely rely on earlier statements but also current developments. 

 

If my RySG colleagues concur, I think the draft letter must be amended to address these points. Zooming out a couple levels, I think attempts to summarise positions are difficult (e.g., making judgments regarding ’tone,’ and independently determining recent developments) and should be re-considered. But that is a discussion for our larger group. 

 

Thanks for the time and attention to consider this.

 

Regards,

 

Kurt

 

On 22 Mar 2024, at 6:36 am, Jeff Neuman via council <council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:

 

All,

 

I feel like I should explain why I drafted the letter in the way that I have since I have gotten some informal feedback.  Yes, I understand the Council did not want to paraphrase the CCOICI statements and just send over the report to the GAC telling them it is in there.  But, I thought I would send an example of using a different approach for the letter for the following reasons:

 

  1. After reviewing the documentation, I realized that a number of the Cs and SGs in their statements were responding to an original report (that is not attached to the C and SG statements).  That original report had language that was considered a “compromise proposal”  The compromise proposal was ultimately not accepted and is not described in detail in the C and SG statements or really in the CCOICI Recommendation Report.  But because the C and SG statements were responding to the compromise proposal as part of the original report, there is a lot of language in the C and SG statements about that compromise language.  If we just referred the GAC to the statements, the would not have the context of what this compromise proposal was and therefore it would be very confusing to the GAC members.  Therefore, in my summaries, I did not include the C and SG views on the compromise proposal (since that no longer exists).

 

  1. Some of the C and SG statements (and I am not making a judgment here) are written in a semi-aggressive and combative tone in how they address other Cs and SGs.  Statements like “I find it ironic that this particular C supports X, when it supports Y in some other situation.”  It is not related to the ultimate debate for this issue and frankly to just send it over without explanation to me seems like airing dirty laundry to persons outside of the GNSO.  So, in the summaries I removed that language.

 

  1. The C and SG statements in the Annex of the report are in no particular order.  They are not grouped in any logical way and I thought grouping them into 2 categories, statements in support of the current exemption, and statements opposed to the current exemption, would make for an easier review.

 

  1. All of the language I used in the “summary” of the C and SG positions are direct quotes and not my own language because I recognize the importance of keeping that language in place and I did not want to paraphrase anyone’s opinions.

 

If the Council wants to take the summaries out the of the letter, that is the Council’s prerogative, and it should do what it wants.  But in light of the view that the GAC wanted the GNSO Council to explain the different positions (to understand why the GNSO did not get consensus), and the fact that when the GAC sends us talking points and other documents they: (a) are well organized, (b) provide rationale, and (c) rarely just say “look at what we said before” (even if they are just stating what the said before), we could reciprocate and provide a helpful document back.  

 

Again, I understand it is more than what was asked for but it is easy enough to pear down should you wish to do so.

 

Sincerely,

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman

Founder & CEO

JJN Solutions, LLC

+1.202.549.5079

From: Jeff Neuman <Jeff@JJNSolutions.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 10:39 AM
To: council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Proposed Letter to GAC re: SOI

 

All,

 

Please find at the link below a proposed first draft of a letter to the GAC as discussed during the last GNSO Council meeting.  The letter attempts to summarize the positions of each SG/C on the professional ethics exemption to the SOI as expressed in Annex A of the CCOICI's Task Force's Recommendations Report.  

 

 

Yes, we can just send a letter attaching word for word what Annex A states (and I do attach it to this letter).  However, I believe I have accurately summarized those 7 pages or so into just over 2 pages.  I essentially use mostly quotes from the actual positions taken, but eliminated some of the examples and restatements in those positions.    I believe the summaries, however, will be much more easily digestible by those that may not have the time to read every word.

 

This is just a first draft and I hand it over to the Council to take it from here if it finds this helpful. [The Google Doc itself has a link to the Recommendations Report]

 

Sincerely,

 

Jeff Neuman

GNSO Liaison to GAC

 

 

 

<Outlook-v5hjme1t.png>

_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council@gnso.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

 

_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council@gnso.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council@gnso.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.