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@kattenlaw.com<mailto:brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com> / 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@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>; 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> 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@afilias.info] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 3:12 AM To: Phil Corwin; 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> 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@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: 23 February 2015 22:59 To: jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>; 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> 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@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 6:47 AM To: 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> 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@afilias.info] Sent: 23 February 2015 11:37 To: 'David Cake'; 'Tony Holmes'; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> 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@difference.com.au] Sent: 23 February 2015 10:11 To: Tony Holmes; <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> 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@btinternet.com<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>> 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). ===========================================================