Hi, I know it is too late for a motion, but will there be an opportunity to get 'sense of the council/gnso' on support for ICANN in this NTIA process? Personally I would like to see Jonathan able to support the ongoing work, without committing to any particular endpoint, but in the name of the GNSO of which he is chair. I know we have an agenda of very important issues, but I beleive we cannot afford to ignore this milestone in Internet governance without push ourselves further into irrelevancy. avrti
I agree with Avri and think it's important we make time for this discussion. Best, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Head of Internet Practice Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP 2900 K Street NW, North Tower<x-apple-data-detectors://0> - Suite 200 /Washington, DC 20007-5118<x-apple-data-detectors://1/0> p / (202) 625-3562<tel:(202)%20625-3562> f / (202) 339-8244<tel:(202)%20339-8244> brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com<mailto:brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com> /www.kattenlaw.com<http://www.kattenlaw.com/> On Mar 20, 2014, at 10:45 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote: Hi, I know it is too late for a motion, but will there be an opportunity to get 'sense of the council/gnso' on support for ICANN in this NTIA process? Personally I would like to see Jonathan able to support the ongoing work, without committing to any particular endpoint, but in the name of the GNSO of which he is chair. I know we have an agenda of very important issues, but I beleive we cannot afford to ignore this milestone in Internet governance without push ourselves further into irrelevancy. avrti =========================================================== CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to Regulations Governing Practice Before the Internal Revenue Service, any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used and cannot be used by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. =========================================================== 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). ===========================================================
Hello, I am open minded to this suggestion. Currently I am aware of various SO & ACs working on potential statements of support. There is also work on similar going on at the SG / Constituency level in the GNSO. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Winterfeldt, Brian J. [mailto:brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com] Sent: 20 March 2014 14:57 To: Avri Doria Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] ICANN & NTIA I agree with Avri and think it's important we make time for this discussion. Best, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Head of Internet Practice Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP 2900 K Street NW, North Tower<x-apple-data-detectors://0> - Suite 200 /Washington, DC 20007-5118<x-apple-data-detectors://1/0> p / (202) 625-3562<tel:(202)%20625-3562> f / (202) 339-8244<tel:(202)%20339-8244> brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com<mailto:brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com> /www.kattenlaw.com<http://www.kattenlaw.com/> On Mar 20, 2014, at 10:45 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote: Hi, I know it is too late for a motion, but will there be an opportunity to get 'sense of the council/gnso' on support for ICANN in this NTIA process? Personally I would like to see Jonathan able to support the ongoing work, without committing to any particular endpoint, but in the name of the GNSO of which he is chair. I know we have an agenda of very important issues, but I beleive we cannot afford to ignore this milestone in Internet governance without push ourselves further into irrelevancy. avrti =========================================================== CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to Regulations Governing Practice Before the Internal Revenue Service, any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used and cannot be used by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. =========================================================== 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). ===========================================================
Hi Avri, I would very much support the idea of equipping Jonathan with a robust mandate. Best, Thomas ============= thomas-rickert.tel +49.228.74.898.0
Am 20.03.2014 um 07:44 schrieb Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>:
Hi,
I know it is too late for a motion, but will there be an opportunity to get 'sense of the council/gnso' on support for ICANN in this NTIA process?
Personally I would like to see Jonathan able to support the ongoing work, without committing to any particular endpoint, but in the name of the GNSO of which he is chair.
I know we have an agenda of very important issues, but I beleive we cannot afford to ignore this milestone in Internet governance without push ourselves further into irrelevancy.
avrti
i do too. mikey On Mar 21, 2014, at 4:14 AM, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
Hi Avri, I would very much support the idea of equipping Jonathan with a robust mandate.
Best, Thomas
============= thomas-rickert.tel +49.228.74.898.0
Am 20.03.2014 um 07:44 schrieb Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>:
Hi,
I know it is too late for a motion, but will there be an opportunity to get 'sense of the council/gnso' on support for ICANN in this NTIA process?
Personally I would like to see Jonathan able to support the ongoing work, without committing to any particular endpoint, but in the name of the GNSO of which he is chair.
I know we have an agenda of very important issues, but I beleive we cannot afford to ignore this milestone in Internet governance without push ourselves further into irrelevancy.
avrti
+ 1 Klaus On 3/21/2014 1:34 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
i do too.
mikey
On Mar 21, 2014, at 4:14 AM, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
Hi Avri, I would very much support the idea of equipping Jonathan with a robust mandate.
Best, Thomas
============= thomas-rickert.tel +49.228.74.898.0
Am 20.03.2014 um 07:44 schrieb Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>:
Hi,
I know it is too late for a motion, but will there be an opportunity to get 'sense of the council/gnso' on support for ICANN in this NTIA process?
Personally I would like to see Jonathan able to support the ongoing work, without committing to any particular endpoint, but in the name of the GNSO of which he is chair.
I know we have an agenda of very important issues, but I beleive we cannot afford to ignore this milestone in Internet governance without push ourselves further into irrelevancy.
avrti
.
Agreed Dan Sent from my iPad
On Mar 21, 2014, at 10:59, "Klaus Stoll" <kdrstoll@gmail.com> wrote:
+ 1
Klaus
On 3/21/2014 1:34 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote: i do too.
mikey
On Mar 21, 2014, at 4:14 AM, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
Hi Avri, I would very much support the idea of equipping Jonathan with a robust mandate.
Best, Thomas
============= thomas-rickert.tel +49.228.74.898.0
Am 20.03.2014 um 07:44 schrieb Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>:
Hi,
I know it is too late for a motion, but will there be an opportunity to get 'sense of the council/gnso' on support for ICANN in this NTIA process?
Personally I would like to see Jonathan able to support the ongoing work, without committing to any particular endpoint, but in the name of the GNSO of which he is chair.
I know we have an agenda of very important issues, but I beleive we cannot afford to ignore this milestone in Internet governance without push ourselves further into irrelevancy.
avrti
.
There is the prospect of a joint AC/SO/SG leaders statement being discussed. It has some momentum although I am aware that the Registries are still discussing detail on the content. Attached is a copy of the latest draft, which originated with ICANN staff and has been commented on since. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: 21 March 2014 04:14 To: Avri Doria Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] ICANN & NTIA Hi Avri, I would very much support the idea of equipping Jonathan with a robust mandate. Best, Thomas ============= thomas-rickert.tel +49.228.74.898.0
Am 20.03.2014 um 07:44 schrieb Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>:
Hi,
I know it is too late for a motion, but will there be an opportunity to get 'sense of the council/gnso' on support for ICANN in this NTIA process?
Personally I would like to see Jonathan able to support the ongoing work, without committing to any particular endpoint, but in the name of the GNSO of which he is chair.
I know we have an agenda of very important issues, but I beleive we cannot afford to ignore this milestone in Internet governance without push ourselves further into irrelevancy.
avrti
+1 on the discussion and also the intent to ultimately supply Jonathan with a clear mandate, if thats' what other councilors end up agreeing with. And good morning, Singapore! Good luck to all traveling today. Maria On 21 March 2014 08:42, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
There is the prospect of a joint AC/SO/SG leaders statement being discussed.
It has some momentum although I am aware that the Registries are still discussing detail on the content.
Attached is a copy of the latest draft, which originated with ICANN staff and has been commented on since.
Jonathan
-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: 21 March 2014 04:14 To: Avri Doria Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] ICANN & NTIA
Hi Avri, I would very much support the idea of equipping Jonathan with a robust mandate.
Best, Thomas
============= thomas-rickert.tel +49.228.74.898.0
Am 20.03.2014 um 07:44 schrieb Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>:
Hi,
I know it is too late for a motion, but will there be an opportunity to get 'sense of the council/gnso' on support for ICANN in this NTIA process?
Personally I would like to see Jonathan able to support the ongoing work, without committing to any particular endpoint, but in the name of the GNSO of which he is chair.
I know we have an agenda of very important issues, but I beleive we cannot afford to ignore this milestone in Internet governance without push ourselves further into irrelevancy.
avrti
participants (8)
-
Avri Doria -
Jonathan Robinson -
Klaus Stoll -
Maria Farrell -
Mike O'Connor -
Reed, Daniel A -
Thomas Rickert -
Winterfeldt, Brian J.