RySG Comment to Council Draft letter to Board
Dear Council Leadership: The RySG has reviewed the proposed letter to the ICANN Board regarding the Board rejection of the IPC Auction Proceeds Request for Reconsideration and appreciates the work of the collaborative small team that put it together. After consideration and discussion, the RySG respectfully suggests that the letter might have a better chance of achieving its desired effect if it is somewhat refocussed and simplified. For example, the Council case is not about the merits of the reconsideration request, as the Board has already agreed to pursue a Bylaws change. Therefore, we could remove substantive references to the auction proceeds model as those references serve to distract from our key point about the Board’s response to the reconsideration request. We also think that the Board is unlikely to issue a statement as requested by the letter. The Board will likely receive advice that it should not make a statement. In any case, such a statement would put an end to the discussion without dealing with the matter at hand. Instead, we believe the letter should explain why the Board response was possibly problematic, state that the Council is concerned about what this means for future reconsideration requests, and seek to place this topic on the agenda for its meeting with the Board in Istanbul. As this is a matter that could affect other SOs and ACs, it may also be appropriate for the Council to suggest that it be added to the agenda of the SO, AC and SG teams that are meeting with the Board prior to the ICANN meeting in Istanbul. We hope you accept this input in the constructive nature intended as we share the goal of the drafters to have a constructive and iterative discussion on this topic with the Board to ensure a mutual understanding of concerns. Sincerely, Jennifer, Nacho, and Kurt on behalf of the RySG
Hi Kurt, Does the RySG have suggested edits that capture the proposed change in scope? Or is this just general feedback? Thanks, Greg -----Original Message----- From: kurt kjpritz.com <kurt@kjpritz.com> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 10:23 PM To: DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase@amazon.com> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>; RySG Members (members@rysg.info) <members@rysg.info> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RySG Comment to Council Draft letter to Board 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. Dear Council Leadership: The RySG has reviewed the proposed letter to the ICANN Board regarding the Board rejection of the IPC Auction Proceeds Request for Reconsideration and appreciates the work of the collaborative small team that put it together. After consideration and discussion, the RySG respectfully suggests that the letter might have a better chance of achieving its desired effect if it is somewhat refocussed and simplified. For example, the Council case is not about the merits of the reconsideration request, as the Board has already agreed to pursue a Bylaws change. Therefore, we could remove substantive references to the auction proceeds model as those references serve to distract from our key point about the Board’s response to the reconsideration request. We also think that the Board is unlikely to issue a statement as requested by the letter. The Board will likely receive advice that it should not make a statement. In any case, such a statement would put an end to the discussion without dealing with the matter at hand. Instead, we believe the letter should explain why the Board response was possibly problematic, state that the Council is concerned about what this means for future reconsideration requests, and seek to place this topic on the agenda for its meeting with the Board in Istanbul. As this is a matter that could affect other SOs and ACs, it may also be appropriate for the Council to suggest that it be added to the agenda of the SO, AC and SG teams that are meeting with the Board prior to the ICANN meeting in Istanbul. We hope you accept this input in the constructive nature intended as we share the goal of the drafters to have a constructive and iterative discussion on this topic with the Board to ensure a mutual understanding of concerns. Sincerely, Jennifer, Nacho, and Kurt on behalf of the RySG
Kurt, Thanks for your note and for sharing the RySG’s concerns. Could we hope on a call to iron out potential edits that would address these concerns? I think that might be the quickest way forward here. Damon J. Damon Ashcraft O: 602.382.6389<tel:602.382.6389> | M: 602.510.1640<tel:602.510.1640> dashcraft@swlaw.com<mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com> SNELL & WILMER swlaw.com<https://www.swlaw.com/> <https://www.swlaw.com/> | <https://www.swlaw.com/> LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/snell-&-wilmer> From: kurt kjpritz.com via council <council@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 10:23 PM To: DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase@amazon.com> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>; RySG Members (members@rysg.info) <members@rysg.info> Subject: [council] RySG Comment to Council Draft letter to Board [EXTERNAL] council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> Dear Council Leadership: The RySG has reviewed the proposed letter to the ICANN Board regarding the Board rejection of the IPC Auction Proceeds Request for Reconsideration and appreciates the work of the collaborative small team that put it together. After consideration and discussion, the RySG respectfully suggests that the letter might have a better chance of achieving its desired effect if it is somewhat refocussed and simplified. For example, the Council case is not about the merits of the reconsideration request, as the Board has already agreed to pursue a Bylaws change. Therefore, we could remove substantive references to the auction proceeds model as those references serve to distract from our key point about the Board’s response to the reconsideration request. We also think that the Board is unlikely to issue a statement as requested by the letter. The Board will likely receive advice that it should not make a statement. In any case, such a statement would put an end to the discussion without dealing with the matter at hand. Instead, we believe the letter should explain why the Board response was possibly problematic, state that the Council is concerned about what this means for future reconsideration requests, and seek to place this topic on the agenda for its meeting with the Board in Istanbul. As this is a matter that could affect other SOs and ACs, it may also be appropriate for the Council to suggest that it be added to the agenda of the SO, AC and SG teams that are meeting with the Board prior to the ICANN meeting in Istanbul. We hope you accept this input in the constructive nature intended as we share the goal of the drafters to have a constructive and iterative discussion on this topic with the Board to ensure a mutual understanding of concerns. Sincerely, Jennifer, Nacho, and Kurt on behalf of the RySG _______________________________________________ council mailing list -- council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave@icann.org<mailto:council-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ 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<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<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.
Hi Damon: As you are also familiar with the workings a stakeholder group / constituency member, I am sure you appreciate the amount of discussion required to get the RySG as far as we did, which is why there are not specific edits suggested. A call or collaboration of some sort is definitely a good idea. The RySG meets in 18 hours or so, and I’ll come back with some ideas for how to close this out quickly. Thanks for writing. Kurt On 4 Sep 2024, at 5:47 am, Ashcraft, Damon <dashcraft@swlaw.com<mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com>> wrote: Kurt, Thanks for your note and for sharing the RySG’s concerns. Could we hope on a call to iron out potential edits that would address these concerns? I think that might be the quickest way forward here. Damon J. Damon Ashcraft O: 602.382.6389<tel:602.382.6389> | M: 602.510.1640<tel:602.510.1640> dashcraft@swlaw.com<mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com> SNELL & WILMER swlaw.com<https://www.swlaw.com/> <https://www.swlaw.com/> | <https://www.swlaw.com/> LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/snell-&-wilmer> From: kurt kjpritz.com<http://kjpritz.com/> via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 10:23 PM To: DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase@amazon.com<mailto:dibiase@amazon.com>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>; RySG Members (members@rysg.info<mailto:members@rysg.info>) <members@rysg.info<mailto:members@rysg.info>> Subject: [council] RySG Comment to Council Draft letter to Board [EXTERNAL] council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> Dear Council Leadership: The RySG has reviewed the proposed letter to the ICANN Board regarding the Board rejection of the IPC Auction Proceeds Request for Reconsideration and appreciates the work of the collaborative small team that put it together. After consideration and discussion, the RySG respectfully suggests that the letter might have a better chance of achieving its desired effect if it is somewhat refocussed and simplified. For example, the Council case is not about the merits of the reconsideration request, as the Board has already agreed to pursue a Bylaws change. Therefore, we could remove substantive references to the auction proceeds model as those references serve to distract from our key point about the Board’s response to the reconsideration request. We also think that the Board is unlikely to issue a statement as requested by the letter. The Board will likely receive advice that it should not make a statement. In any case, such a statement would put an end to the discussion without dealing with the matter at hand. Instead, we believe the letter should explain why the Board response was possibly problematic, state that the Council is concerned about what this means for future reconsideration requests, and seek to place this topic on the agenda for its meeting with the Board in Istanbul. As this is a matter that could affect other SOs and ACs, it may also be appropriate for the Council to suggest that it be added to the agenda of the SO, AC and SG teams that are meeting with the Board prior to the ICANN meeting in Istanbul. We hope you accept this input in the constructive nature intended as we share the goal of the drafters to have a constructive and iterative discussion on this topic with the Board to ensure a mutual understanding of concerns. Sincerely, Jennifer, Nacho, and Kurt on behalf of the RySG _______________________________________________ council mailing list -- council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave@icann.org<mailto:council-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ 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.
participants (3)
-
Ashcraft, Damon -
DiBiase, Gregory -
kurt kjpritz.com