I am forwarded this to the Council list as requested by Jeff.

Chuck

All,

Can I ask that this comment is submitted to the Accountability and Review Team?  It is submitted in response to the GNSO Resolution on String Similarity.( http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jun10-en.htm) and more particularly to the specific GNSO Resolution in posting the letter out for comment. 

Chuck – Can you also please post to the Council for me as well?

Thanks.

All,

This comment is being submitted in my personal capacity and not on behalf of my employer, Neustar, Inc., or the Registries Stakeholder Group.  In addition, my comment is not on the draft letter itself, as those comments, if any, will be submitted through the RySG, but rather relates to the resolution passed by the GNSO Council requesting that the letter go out for public comment.

More specifically, at the last minute, and without any discussion by the community, the GNSO Council included the following language:

“FURTHER RESOLVED, that this motion shall not serve as a precedent requiring the GNSO Council to adhere to a public comment period requirement for any future GNSO Council letters.”

Not only has no explanation been given for this last minute addition, but I believe the statement is fundamentally flawed on a number of different levels.  It is not the GNSO Council’s role to decide what does and does not go out for public comment when it relates to policy (as this letter clearly does).  That role should be specifically reserved for the GNSO community.  The GNSO Council’s authority, as documented in the Bylaws, is generated from the people and communities in which it serves.  This has been said over and over again, but the Council is NOT a legislature that has the right to make proclamations, policy decisions, etc., without having to go back to the GNSO community. This is supposed to be a bottom-up organization where policy is developed through individuals, working groups, experts, etc. and then brought to the Council for it to manage, not the other way around.  To the extent that any “letters” are submitted by the Council to any external party, and those letters relate to policy, then yes they do need to go out for community input.  If they merely relate to administrative of true coordination matters, then they do not need to go out for comment.

As one of the main catalysts for getting this letter out for public comment, I thank the Council for doing the right thing and posting this for comment.  It is what should happen with ALL letters that relate to policy.  I am not sure why the GNSO Council felt it was necessary to include this “further resolution”, but to the extent that it reflects the presumption that Council does not have to go back to the community when it issues letters relating to policy, I ask that the resolution be stricken from the record.  I ask that this issue be considered by the appropriate GNSO Improvements team and am also submitting this separately to the Accountability and Review team for its consideration.  I would also ask that this be discussed at the Council meeting in Brussels and would be happy to personally address during that meeting.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166
Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman@neustar.biz  / www.neustar.biz     

The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.