All,

From a purely personal point-of-view (and as a communications consultant), I was struck by the pejorative nature of some of the language used in what otherwise could have been a motion written to make the point without using the sharp end of a stick.

So as to be specific, I have boldfaced the words that led me to this conclusion: "The GNSO Council registers its disappointment and concern at the recent adoption in significant parts by ICANN staff of the Trademark Clearing House "Strawman Solution", despite the proposal's flawed genesis and the strong opposition to it voiced by both the GNSO council and a significant portion of the public comments. The expansion of rights protection mechanisms in the new gTLDs, following the comprehensive policy processes of the GNSO that had appeared to settle these issues, and also the clear determination by the GNSO Council that specific measures therein represent substantive policy-making rather than purely technical or operational implementation, represent an unwarranted extension into the policy-making function by ICANN staff. The GNSO Council strongly regrets the decision to circumvent the established, transparent and rules-based policy development process in a top-down decision-making process, to the detriment of the GNSO Council's bylaw-defined role and the multi-stakeholder model more broadly. As ICANN staff also currently seeks to endow the Board with top-down and unilateral policy authority in the new RA and RAA, without substantive justification, the GNSO Council is deeply concerned by the implications of this extension of executive privilege, in the adoption of the "Strawman Solution", and in other issues, and for the future of the multi-stakeholder model. The GNSO council therefore requests that the Board re-consider the proposed course of action regarding the TMCH, and, specifically, that the the extension of the TMCH claims procedure to 90 days and the inclusion of 50 additional terms not to be implemented until these proposals have been approved by a majority of the GNSO Council after careful consideration of their implications." There is no issue that cannot be brought up, many of which are in our mandate and some that have led to actionable motions. This could be one, too, but with "disappointment" met with "fervently." I worry the horse may be out of the barn. See you in a few days. Cheers, Berard --------- Original Message ---------Subject: RE: [council] Request for agenda item for Beijing GNSO Council meeting From: "Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> Date: 4/3/13 10:51 am To: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Dear all: The IPC opposes this motion and fervently disagrees with statements proposed therein. We will follow up in due course with additional details on the IPC’s position. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Partner bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com Steptoe From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Jonathan Robinson[SMTP:JONATHAN.ROBINSON@IPRACON.COM] Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 11:40:47 PM To: 'Maria Farrell'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Request for agenda item for Beijing GNSO Council meeting Auto forwarded by a Rule Thanks Maria, One practical question, I believe you are not going to be at the meeting in Beijing. So, is it your intention that someone else leads the making of the motion and the initial discussion or will you do so remotely? Jonathan From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Maria Farrell Sent: 02 April 2013 23:30 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Request for agenda item for Beijing GNSO Council meeting Dear Jonathan and fellow Council members, I would like to request the addition of an item to the draft Beijing GNSO Council meeting agenda, circulated earlier today, by proposing a motion for discussion and adoption, copied below. "The GNSO Council registers its disappointment and concern at the recent adoption in significant parts by ICANN staff of the Trademark Clearing House "Strawman Solution", despite the proposal's flawed genesis and the strong opposition to it voiced by both the GNSO council and a significant portion of the public comments. The expansion of rights protection mechanisms in the new gTLDs, following the comprehensive policy processes of the GNSO that had appeared to settle these issues, and also the clear determination by the GNSO Council that specific measures therein represent substantive policy-making rather than purely technical or operational implementation, represent an unwarranted extension into the policy-making function by ICANN staff. The GNSO Council strongly regrets the decision to circumvent the established, transparent and rules-based policy development process in a top-down decision-making process, to the detriment of the GNSO Council's bylaw-defined role and the multi-stakeholder model more broadly. As ICANN staff also currently seeks to endow the Board with top-down and unilateral policy authority in the new RA and RAA, without substantive justification, the GNSO Council is deeply concerned by the implications of this extension of executive privilege, in the adoption of the "Strawman Solution", and in other issues, and for the future of the multi-stakeholder model. The GNSO council therefore requests that the Board re-consider the proposed course of action regarding the TMCH, and, specifically, that the the extension of the TMCH claims procedure to 90 days and the inclusion of 50 additional terms not to be implemented until these proposals have been approved by a majority of the GNSO Council after careful consideration of their implications." Best regards, Maria