Bruce, Thanks for forwarding this note on to the Council. Given the timing sensitivities, I would propose the Council tomorrow sending a note like the one below. Any objections? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dear Board Governance Committee, As you may be aware, the GNSO Council had the opportunity to review the BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendati... (Recommendation) during its regular monthly Council call on June 16, 2013. Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, we have some key concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. These concerns were expressed during the Council call and on the Council mailing list and centered around the perceived potential impact of the Recommendation on the GNSO and more broadly, the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model. We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to withdraw the arguments used to support the ultimate rejection of the Reconsideration Request, and replace the rationale with something more in line with the scope of Reconsideration Requests as outlined in the ICANN Bylaws. In addition, we ask that we continue the dialogue on the this particular matter in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban. Sincerely, Jonathan Robinson GNSO Council Chair Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 7:02 AM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... ) Bruce, Thank-you for flagging this. We will endeavour to provide you with this. Jonathan From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: 16 June 2013 23:52 To: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... ) Hello Jonathan, For information- the Board Governance Committee is meeting on Tuesday 18 June at 21:00 UTC time. A review of the rationale for reconsideration request 13.3 is on the agenda. Any materials you can provide before then would be useful. I am expecting that the new gTLD program committee will then consider reconsideration request 13.3 at its meeting on 25 June 2013. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Jeff, I have no objections. Best regards, Osvaldo ________________________________ De: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] En nombre de Neuman, Jeff Enviado el: Lunes, 17 de Junio de 2013 17:09 Para: 'jrobinson@afilias.info'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@gnso.icann.org Asunto: [council] Draft Letter to BGC Bruce, Thanks for forwarding this note on to the Council. Given the timing sensitivities, I would propose the Council tomorrow sending a note like the one below. Any objections? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dear Board Governance Committee, As you may be aware, the GNSO Council had the opportunity to review the BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendati... (Recommendation) during its regular monthly Council call on June 16, 2013. Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, we have some key concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. These concerns were expressed during the Council call and on the Council mailing list and centered around the perceived potential impact of the Recommendation on the GNSO and more broadly, the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model. We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to withdraw the arguments used to support the ultimate rejection of the Reconsideration Request, and replace the rationale with something more in line with the scope of Reconsideration Requests as outlined in the ICANN Bylaws. In addition, we ask that we continue the dialogue on the this particular matter in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban. Sincerely, Jonathan Robinson GNSO Council Chair Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 7:02 AM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... ) Bruce, Thank-you for flagging this. We will endeavour to provide you with this. Jonathan From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: 16 June 2013 23:52 To: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... ) Hello Jonathan, For information- the Board Governance Committee is meeting on Tuesday 18 June at 21:00 UTC time. A review of the rationale for reconsideration request 13.3 is on the agenda. Any materials you can provide before then would be useful. I am expecting that the new gTLD program committee will then consider reconsideration request 13.3 at its meeting on 25 June 2013. Regards, Bruce Tonkin ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto est? dirigido ?nicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene informaci?n que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Est? prohibida cualquier utilizaci?n, difusi?n o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las espec?ficas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicaci?n que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Pol?tica de Seguridad de la Informaci?n This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.
Jeff, et. al., Even though short, this note makes more of what happened than I heard. In as much as it was an open discussion, we didn't hear from all and we certainly took no votes, either on a proposal, motion or sense of the Council. And I was the guy who coined the term "executivication" of decision-making at ICANN. I see the problem, but not the basis for a solution. It is true that the Board committee's decision has sparked a bit of a controversy (the transcript of the meeting shows that), but there is no basis for any "ask," except perhaps that the full Board draw its own conclusion as to whether the decision undermines the community as has been suggested. Asking for this to be on our joint meeting agenda for Durban is totally within our purview, too. I guess that rolls up to being an objection. Cheers, Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: [council] Draft Letter to BGC From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> Date: 6/17/13 1:09 pm To: "'jrobinson@afilias.info'" <jrobinson@afilias.info>, "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Bruce, Thanks for forwarding this note on to the Council. Given the timing sensitivities, I would propose the Council tomorrow sending a note like the one below. Any objections? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dear Board Governance Committee, As you may be aware, the GNSO Council had the opportunity to review the BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendati... (Recommendation) during its regular monthly Council call on June 16, 2013. Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, we have some key concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. These concerns were expressed during the Council call and on the Council mailing list and centered around the perceived potential impact of the Recommendation on the GNSO and more broadly, the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model. We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to withdraw the arguments used to support the ultimate rejection of the Reconsideration Request, and replace the rationale with something more in line with the scope of Reconsideration Requests as outlined in the ICANN Bylaws. In addition, we ask that we continue the dialogue on the this particular matter in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban. Sincerely, Jonathan Robinson GNSO Council Chair Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 7:02 AM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... ) Bruce, Thank-you for flagging this. We will endeavour to provide you with this. Jonathan From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: 16 June 2013 23:52 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... ) Hello Jonathan, For information- the Board Governance Committee is meeting on Tuesday 18 June at 21:00 UTC time. A review of the rationale for reconsideration request 13.3 is on the agenda. Any materials you can provide before then would be useful. I am expecting that the new gTLD program committee will then consider reconsideration request 13.3 at its meeting on 25 June 2013. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
John, Good that the short version makes sense. It’s often the case as you well know! I felt it was clear in the Council meeting of 13/06/2013n that I understood that a formal letter would need to be sent on behalf of the Council and that this was what we were discussing. I haven’t cross-checked against the transcript. However, I did cover this in my 16/06/2013 summary of the discussion and outcomes and didn’t receive any objections. Of course, it doesn’t necessarily require a vote for us to take action. We have an unusually tight deadline in that the BGC is meeting today at 21h00 UTC. If we accept your objection, we do nothing, at least before the BGC meets. If we are to do something before the BGC meets, we need to do it fast. Personally, I am OK to put my name next to a draft substantially similar to what Jeff has outlined below but clearly, need support from the Council if I am to do so. Is there a variation on what Jeff has written that you feel you could support reasonably well in advance of the 21h00 deadline? Thanks, Jonathan From: john@crediblecontext.com [mailto:john@crediblecontext.com] Sent: 17 June 2013 23:25 To: Neuman, Jeff; 'jrobinson@afilias.info'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC Jeff, et. al., Even though short, this note makes more of what happened than I heard. In as much as it was an open discussion, we didn't hear from all and we certainly took no votes, either on a proposal, motion or sense of the Council. And I was the guy who coined the term "executivication" of decision-making at ICANN. I see the problem, but not the basis for a solution. It is true that the Board committee's decision has sparked a bit of a controversy (the transcript of the meeting shows that), but there is no basis for any "ask," except perhaps that the full Board draw its own conclusion as to whether the decision undermines the community as has been suggested. Asking for this to be on our joint meeting agenda for Durban is totally within our purview, too. I guess that rolls up to being an objection. Cheers, Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: [council] Draft Letter to BGC From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> Date: 6/17/13 1:09 pm To: "'jrobinson@afilias.info'" <jrobinson@afilias.info>, "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Bruce, Thanks for forwarding this note on to the Council. Given the timing sensitivities, I would propose the Council tomorrow sending a note like the one below. Any objections? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dear Board Governance Committee, As you may be aware, the GNSO Council had the opportunity to review the BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendati... (Recommendation) during its regular monthly Council call on June 16, 2013. Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, we have some key concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. These concerns were expressed during the Council call and on the Council mailing list and centered around the perceived potential impact of the Recommendation on the GNSO and more broadly, the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model. We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to withdraw the arguments used to support the ultimate rejection of the Reconsideration Request, and replace the rationale with something more in line with the scope of Reconsideration Requests as outlined in the ICANN Bylaws. In addition, we ask that we continue the dialogue on the this particular matter in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban. Sincerely, Jonathan Robinson GNSO Council Chair Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 7:02 AM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... ) Bruce, Thank-you for flagging this. We will endeavour to provide you with this. Jonathan From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: 16 June 2013 23:52 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... ) Hello Jonathan, For information- the Board Governance Committee is meeting on Tuesday 18 June at 21:00 UTC time. A review of the rationale for reconsideration request 13.3 is on the agenda. Any materials you can provide before then would be useful. I am expecting that the new gTLD program committee will then consider reconsideration request 13.3 at its meeting on 25 June 2013. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
In the interest of expediency and due to the tight timing, perhaps just say that concerns were raised by some on Council and that we would appreciate the issue being deferred until we have had an opportunity to have a face-to-face discussion in Durban. I think that this is in line with the tone of the discussion last week. Alan At 18/06/2013 10:42 AM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
John,
Good that the short version makes sense. Itâs often the case as you well know!
I felt it was clear in the Council meeting of 13/06/2013n that I understood that a formal letter would need to be sent on behalf of the Council and that this was what we were discussing. I havenât cross-checked against the transcript. However, I did cover this in my 16/06/2013 summary of the discussion and outcomes and didnât receive any objections. Of course, it doesnât necessarily require a vote for us to take action.
We have an unusually tight deadline in that the BGC is meeting today at 21h00 UTC. If we accept your objection, we do nothing, at least before the BGC meets. If we are to do something before the BGC meets, we need to do it fast.
Personally, I am OK to put my name next to a draft substantially similar to what Jeff has outlined below but clearly, need support from the Council if I am to do so. Is there a variation on what Jeff has written that you feel you could support reasonably well in advance of the 21h00 deadline?
Thanks,
Jonathan
From: john@crediblecontext.com [mailto:john@crediblecontext.com] Sent: 17 June 2013 23:25 To: Neuman, Jeff; 'jrobinson@afilias.info'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC
Jeff, et. al.,
Even though short, this note makes more of what happened than I heard. In as much as it was an open discussion, we didn't hear from all and we certainly took no votes, either on a proposal, motion or sense of the Council.
And I was the guy who coined the term "executivication" of decision-making at ICANN. I see the problem, but not the basis for a solution.
It is true that the Board committee's decision has sparked a bit of a controversy (the transcript of the meeting shows that), but there is no basis for any "ask," except perhaps that the full Board draw its own conclusion as to whether the decision undermines the community as has been suggested. Asking for this to be on our joint meeting agenda for Durban is totally within our purview, too.
I guess that rolls up to being an objection.
Cheers,
Berard
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: [council] Draft Letter to BGC From: "Neuman, Jeff" <<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> Date: 6/17/13 1:09 pm To: "'jrobinson@afilias.info'" <<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>jrobinson@afilias.info>, "'Bruce Tonkin'" <<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>, "<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council@gnso.icann.org" <<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council@gnso.icann.org> Bruce,
Thanks for forwarding this note on to the Council. Given the timing sensitivities, I would propose the Council tomorrow sending a note like the one below. Any objections?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Board Governance Committee,
As you may be aware, the GNSO Council had the opportunity to review the BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which can be found at <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendation-ncsg-16may13-en.pdf>http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendation-ncsg-16may13-en.pdf (Recommendation) during its regular monthly Council call on June 16, 2013.
Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, we have some key concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. These concerns were expressed during the Council call and on the Council mailing list and centered around the perceived potential impact of the Recommendation on the GNSO and more broadly, the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model.
We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to withdraw the arguments used to support the ultimate rejection of the Reconsideration Request, and replace the rationale with something more in line with the scope of Reconsideration Requests as outlined in the ICANN Bylaws. In addition, we ask that we continue the dialogue on the this particular matter in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Robinson GNSO Council Chair
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
From: <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 7:02 AM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... )
Bruce,
Thank-you for flagging this.
We will endeavour to provide you with this.
Jonathan
From: Bruce Tonkin [<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au]
Sent: 16 June 2013 23:52 To: <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... )
Hello Jonathan,
For information- the Board Governance Committee is meeting on Tuesday 18 June at 21:00 UTC time.
A review of the rationale for reconsideration request 13.3 is on the agenda. Any materials you can provide before then would be useful.
I am expecting that the new gTLD program committee will then consider reconsideration request 13.3 at its meeting on 25 June 2013.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
It is near 1 pm Eastern on June 18. What does the letter look like now? Berard Sent from my iPhone On Jun 18, 2013, at 10:42 AM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
John,
Good that the short version makes sense. It’s often the case as you well know!
I felt it was clear in the Council meeting of 13/06/2013n that I understood that a formal letter would need to be sent on behalf of the Council and that this was what we were discussing. I haven’t cross-checked against the transcript. However, I did cover this in my 16/06/2013 summary of the discussion and outcomes and didn’t receive any objections. Of course, it doesn’t necessarily require a vote for us to take action.
We have an unusually tight deadline in that the BGC is meeting today at 21h00 UTC. If we accept your objection, we do nothing, at least before the BGC meets. If we are to do something before the BGC meets, we need to do it fast.
Personally, I am OK to put my name next to a draft substantially similar to what Jeff has outlined below but clearly, need support from the Council if I am to do so. Is there a variation on what Jeff has written that you feel you could support reasonably well in advance of the 21h00 deadline?
Thanks,
Jonathan
From: john@crediblecontext.com [mailto:john@crediblecontext.com] Sent: 17 June 2013 23:25 To: Neuman, Jeff; 'jrobinson@afilias.info'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC
Jeff, et. al.,
Even though short, this note makes more of what happened than I heard. In as much as it was an open discussion, we didn't hear from all and we certainly took no votes, either on a proposal, motion or sense of the Council.
And I was the guy who coined the term "executivication" of decision-making at ICANN. I see the problem, but not the basis for a solution.
It is true that the Board committee's decision has sparked a bit of a controversy (the transcript of the meeting shows that), but there is no basis for any "ask," except perhaps that the full Board draw its own conclusion as to whether the decision undermines the community as has been suggested. Asking for this to be on our joint meeting agenda for Durban is totally within our purview, too.
I guess that rolls up to being an objection.
Cheers,
Berard
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: [council] Draft Letter to BGC From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> Date: 6/17/13 1:09 pm To: "'jrobinson@afilias.info'" <jrobinson@afilias.info>, "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org>
Bruce,
Thanks for forwarding this note on to the Council. Given the timing sensitivities, I would propose the Council tomorrow sending a note like the one below. Any objections?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Board Governance Committee,
As you may be aware, the GNSO Council had the opportunity to review the BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendati... (Recommendation) during its regular monthly Council call on June 16, 2013.
Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, we have some key concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. These concerns were expressed during the Council call and on the Council mailing list and centered around the perceived potential impact of the Recommendation on the GNSO and more broadly, the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model.
We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to withdraw the arguments used to support the ultimate rejection of the Reconsideration Request, and replace the rationale with something more in line with the scope of Reconsideration Requests as outlined in the ICANN Bylaws. In addition, we ask that we continue the dialogue on the this particular matter in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Robinson GNSO Council Chair
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 7:02 AM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... )
Bruce,
Thank-you for flagging this.
We will endeavour to provide you with this.
Jonathan
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: 16 June 2013 23:52 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... )
Hello Jonathan,
For information- the Board Governance Committee is meeting on Tuesday 18 June at 21:00 UTC time.
A review of the rationale for reconsideration request 13.3 is on the agenda. Any materials you can provide before then would be useful.
I am expecting that the new gTLD program committee will then consider reconsideration request 13.3 at its meeting on 25 June 2013.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Jeff has offered a diluted version of his original draft. Brian has offered a different approach. One variant to Jeff’s proposed last sentence could be: Change: We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to defer the publication of the rationale of the Reconsideration Request until such time that a more complete discussion on this matter can take place with the community in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban. To: We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to thoroughly review the rationale of the Reconsideration Request and consider deferral of the publication of the rationale until such time that a more complete discussion on this matter can take place with the community in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban. It’s not prescriptive on a solution but clearly raises the concern. Any takers for that? Jonathan From: John Berard [mailto:john@crediblecontext.com] Sent: 18 June 2013 18:50 To: <jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Bruce Tonkin; <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft Letter to BGC It is near 1 pm Eastern on June 18. What does the letter look like now? Berard Sent from my iPhone On Jun 18, 2013, at 10:42 AM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote: John, Good that the short version makes sense. It’s often the case as you well know! I felt it was clear in the Council meeting of 13/06/2013n that I understood that a formal letter would need to be sent on behalf of the Council and that this was what we were discussing. I haven’t cross-checked against the transcript. However, I did cover this in my 16/06/2013 summary of the discussion and outcomes and didn’t receive any objections. Of course, it doesn’t necessarily require a vote for us to take action. We have an unusually tight deadline in that the BGC is meeting today at 21h00 UTC. If we accept your objection, we do nothing, at least before the BGC meets. If we are to do something before the BGC meets, we need to do it fast. Personally, I am OK to put my name next to a draft substantially similar to what Jeff has outlined below but clearly, need support from the Council if I am to do so. Is there a variation on what Jeff has written that you feel you could support reasonably well in advance of the 21h00 deadline? Thanks, Jonathan From: john@crediblecontext.com [mailto:john@crediblecontext.com] Sent: 17 June 2013 23:25 To: Neuman, Jeff; 'jrobinson@afilias.info'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC Jeff, et. al., Even though short, this note makes more of what happened than I heard. In as much as it was an open discussion, we didn't hear from all and we certainly took no votes, either on a proposal, motion or sense of the Council. And I was the guy who coined the term "executivication" of decision-making at ICANN. I see the problem, but not the basis for a solution. It is true that the Board committee's decision has sparked a bit of a controversy (the transcript of the meeting shows that), but there is no basis for any "ask," except perhaps that the full Board draw its own conclusion as to whether the decision undermines the community as has been suggested. Asking for this to be on our joint meeting agenda for Durban is totally within our purview, too. I guess that rolls up to being an objection. Cheers, Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: [council] Draft Letter to BGC From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> Date: 6/17/13 1:09 pm To: "'jrobinson@afilias.info'" <jrobinson@afilias.info>, "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Bruce, Thanks for forwarding this note on to the Council. Given the timing sensitivities, I would propose the Council tomorrow sending a note like the one below. Any objections? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dear Board Governance Committee, As you may be aware, the GNSO Council had the opportunity to review the BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendati... (Recommendation) during its regular monthly Council call on June 16, 2013. Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, we have some key concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. These concerns were expressed during the Council call and on the Council mailing list and centered around the perceived potential impact of the Recommendation on the GNSO and more broadly, the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model. We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to withdraw the arguments used to support the ultimate rejection of the Reconsideration Request, and replace the rationale with something more in line with the scope of Reconsideration Requests as outlined in the ICANN Bylaws. In addition, we ask that we continue the dialogue on the this particular matter in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban. Sincerely, Jonathan Robinson GNSO Council Chair Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 7:02 AM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... ) Bruce, Thank-you for flagging this. We will endeavour to provide you with this. Jonathan From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: 16 June 2013 23:52 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... ) Hello Jonathan, For information- the Board Governance Committee is meeting on Tuesday 18 June at 21:00 UTC time. A review of the rationale for reconsideration request 13.3 is on the agenda. Any materials you can provide before then would be useful. I am expecting that the new gTLD program committee will then consider reconsideration request 13.3 at its meeting on 25 June 2013. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
I would second that as a compromise. Volker
Jeff has offered a diluted version of his original draft.
Brian has offered a different approach.
One variant to Jeff’s proposed last sentence could be:
Change:
We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to defer the publication of the rationale of the Reconsideration Request until such time that a more complete discussion on this matter can take place with the community in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban.
To:
We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to thoroughly review the rationale of the Reconsideration Request and consider deferral ofthe publication of the rationale until such time that a more complete discussion on this matter can take place with the community in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban.
It’s not prescriptive on a solution but clearly raises the concern.
Any takers for that?
Jonathan
*From:*John Berard [mailto:john@crediblecontext.com] *Sent:* 18 June 2013 18:50 *To:* <jrobinson@afilias.info> *Cc:* Neuman, Jeff; Bruce Tonkin; <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [council] Draft Letter to BGC
It is near 1 pm Eastern on June 18. What does the letter look like now?
Berard
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 18, 2013, at 10:42 AM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote:
John,
Good that the short version makes sense. It’s often the case as you well know!
I felt it was clear in the Council meeting of 13/06/2013n that I understood that a formal letter would need to be sent on behalf of the Council and that this was what we were discussing.
I haven’t cross-checked against the transcript. However, I did cover this in my 16/06/2013 summary of the discussion and outcomes and didn’t receive any objections.
Of course, it doesn’t necessarily require a vote for us to take action.
We have an unusually tight deadline in that the BGC is meeting today at 21h00 UTC. If we accept your objection, we do nothing, at least before the BGC meets.
If we are to do something before the BGC meets, we need to do it fast.
Personally, I am OK to put my name next to a draft substantially similar to what Jeff has outlined below but clearly, need support from the Council if I am to do so.
Is there a variation on what Jeff has written that you feel you could support reasonably well in advance of the 21h00 deadline?
Thanks,
Jonathan
*From:*john@crediblecontext.com <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> [mailto:john@crediblecontext.com] *Sent:* 17 June 2013 23:25 *To:* Neuman, Jeff; 'jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject:* RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC
Jeff, et. al.,
Even though short, this note makes more of what happened than I heard. In as much as it was an open discussion, we didn't hear from all and we certainly took no votes, either on a proposal, motion or sense of the Council.
And I was the guy who coined the term "executivication" of decision-making at ICANN. I see the problem, but not the basis for a solution.
It is true that the Board committee's decision has sparked a bit of a controversy (the transcript of the meeting shows that), but there is no basis for any "ask," except perhaps that the full Board draw its own conclusion as to whether the decision undermines the community as has been suggested. Asking for this to be on our joint meeting agenda for Durban is totally within our purview, too.
I guess that rolls up to being an objection.
Cheers,
Berard
--------- Original Message ---------
Subject: [council] Draft Letter to BGC From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>> Date: 6/17/13 1:09 pm To: "'jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>'" <jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>, "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>, "council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>
Bruce,
Thanks for forwarding this note on to the Council. Given the timing sensitivities, I would propose the Council tomorrow sending a note like the one below. Any objections?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Board Governance Committee,
As you may be aware, the GNSO Council had the opportunity to review the BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendati... (Recommendation) during its regular monthly Council call on June 16, 2013.
Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, we have some key concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. These concerns were expressed during the Council call and on the Council mailing list and centered around the perceived potential impact of the Recommendation on the GNSO and more broadly, the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model.
We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to withdraw the arguments used to support the ultimate rejection of the Reconsideration Request, and replace the rationale with something more in line with the scope of Reconsideration Requests as outlined in the ICANN Bylaws. In addition, we ask that we continue the dialogue on the this particular matter in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Robinson
GNSO Council Chair
*Jeffrey J. Neuman**** **Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs*
*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, June 17, 2013 7:02 AM *To:* 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject:* RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... )
Bruce,
Thank-you for flagging this.
We will endeavour to provide you with this.
Jonathan
*From:*Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] *Sent:* 16 June 2013 23:52 *To:* council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject:* RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... )
Hello Jonathan,
For information- the Board Governance Committee is meeting on Tuesday 18 June at 21:00 UTC time.
A review of the rationale for reconsideration request 13.3 is on the agenda. Any materials you can provide before then would be useful.
I am expecting that the new gTLD program committee will then consider reconsideration request 13.3 at its meeting on 25 June 2013.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Given the discussion we had and the concerns voiced by many Councillors the least I would like to see is doing nothing. I am supportive of Jeff's original language as well as his amended draft. If some of you have issues with the characterization of the discussion, I propose we can edit the following sentence: Original wording: Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, we have some key concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. Proposed language: Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, some Councillors have voiced concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. By taking out the "we", this cannot be understood as a Council position. Hope this helps. Thomas Am 18.06.2013 um 18:50 schrieb John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com>:
It is near 1 pm Eastern on June 18. What does the letter look like now?
Berard
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 18, 2013, at 10:42 AM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
John,
Good that the short version makes sense. It’s often the case as you well know!
I felt it was clear in the Council meeting of 13/06/2013n that I understood that a formal letter would need to be sent on behalf of the Council and that this was what we were discussing. I haven’t cross-checked against the transcript. However, I did cover this in my 16/06/2013 summary of the discussion and outcomes and didn’t receive any objections. Of course, it doesn’t necessarily require a vote for us to take action.
We have an unusually tight deadline in that the BGC is meeting today at 21h00 UTC. If we accept your objection, we do nothing, at least before the BGC meets. If we are to do something before the BGC meets, we need to do it fast.
Personally, I am OK to put my name next to a draft substantially similar to what Jeff has outlined below but clearly, need support from the Council if I am to do so. Is there a variation on what Jeff has written that you feel you could support reasonably well in advance of the 21h00 deadline?
Thanks,
Jonathan
From: john@crediblecontext.com [mailto:john@crediblecontext.com] Sent: 17 June 2013 23:25 To: Neuman, Jeff; 'jrobinson@afilias.info'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC
Jeff, et. al.,
Even though short, this note makes more of what happened than I heard. In as much as it was an open discussion, we didn't hear from all and we certainly took no votes, either on a proposal, motion or sense of the Council.
And I was the guy who coined the term "executivication" of decision-making at ICANN. I see the problem, but not the basis for a solution.
It is true that the Board committee's decision has sparked a bit of a controversy (the transcript of the meeting shows that), but there is no basis for any "ask," except perhaps that the full Board draw its own conclusion as to whether the decision undermines the community as has been suggested. Asking for this to be on our joint meeting agenda for Durban is totally within our purview, too.
I guess that rolls up to being an objection.
Cheers,
Berard
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: [council] Draft Letter to BGC From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> Date: 6/17/13 1:09 pm To: "'jrobinson@afilias.info'" <jrobinson@afilias.info>, "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org>
Bruce,
Thanks for forwarding this note on to the Council. Given the timing sensitivities, I would propose the Council tomorrow sending a note like the one below. Any objections?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Board Governance Committee,
As you may be aware, the GNSO Council had the opportunity to review the BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendati... (Recommendation) during its regular monthly Council call on June 16, 2013.
Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, we have some key concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. These concerns were expressed during the Council call and on the Council mailing list and centered around the perceived potential impact of the Recommendation on the GNSO and more broadly, the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model.
We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to withdraw the arguments used to support the ultimate rejection of the Reconsideration Request, and replace the rationale with something more in line with the scope of Reconsideration Requests as outlined in the ICANN Bylaws. In addition, we ask that we continue the dialogue on the this particular matter in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Robinson GNSO Council Chair
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 7:02 AM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... )
Bruce,
Thank-you for flagging this.
We will endeavour to provide you with this.
Jonathan
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: 16 June 2013 23:52 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... )
Hello Jonathan,
For information- the Board Governance Committee is meeting on Tuesday 18 June at 21:00 UTC time.
A review of the rationale for reconsideration request 13.3 is on the agenda. Any materials you can provide before then would be useful.
I am expecting that the new gTLD program committee will then consider reconsideration request 13.3 at its meeting on 25 June 2013.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
I would suggest a simple message from the Chair, on his own behalf, noting that there is an ongoing discussion of the issue within the GNSO Council, and as Chair, you would appreciate a deferment of consideration of the BGC recommendation until there has been an opportunity to discuss the issue fully within Council and with the Board in Durban. Also, Bruce said the BGC, but isn't it the new gTLD committee that will be ratifying (and is meeting today and again on the 25th.) Alan At 18/06/2013 01:18 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
Given the discussion we had and the concerns voiced by many Councillors the least I would like to see is doing nothing. I am supportive of Jeff's original language as well as his amended draft.
If some of you have issues with the characterization of the discussion, I propose we can edit the following sentence:
Original wording: Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, we have some key concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation.
Proposed language: Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, some Councillors have voiced concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation.
By taking out the "we", this cannot be understood as a Council position.
Hope this helps.
Thomas
Am 18.06.2013 um 18:50 schrieb John Berard <<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>john@crediblecontext.com>:
It is near 1 pm Eastern on June 18. What does the letter look like now?
Berard
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 18, 2013, at 10:42 AM, "Jonathan Robinson" <<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
John,
Good that the short version makes sense. It's often the case as you well know!
I felt it was clear in the Council meeting of 13/06/2013n that I understood that a formal letter would need to be sent on behalf of the Council and that this was what we were discussing. I haven't cross-checked against the transcript. However, I did cover this in my 16/06/2013 summary of the discussion and outcomes and didn't receive any objections. Of course, it doesn't necessarily require a vote for us to take action.
We have an unusually tight deadline in that the BGC is meeting today at 21h00 UTC. If we accept your objection, we do nothing, at least before the BGC meets. If we are to do something before the BGC meets, we need to do it fast.
Personally, I am OK to put my name next to a draft substantially similar to what Jeff has outlined below but clearly, need support from the Council if I am to do so. Is there a variation on what Jeff has written that you feel you could support reasonably well in advance of the 21h00 deadline?
Thanks,
Jonathan
From: <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>john@crediblecontext.com [mailto:john@crediblecontext.com] Sent: 17 June 2013 23:25 To: Neuman, Jeff; '<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>jrobinson@afilias.info'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC
Jeff, et. al.,
Even though short, this note makes more of what happened than I heard. In as much as it was an open discussion, we didn't hear from all and we certainly took no votes, either on a proposal, motion or sense of the Council.
And I was the guy who coined the term "executivication" of decision-making at ICANN. I see the problem, but not the basis for a solution.
It is true that the Board committee's decision has sparked a bit of a controversy (the transcript of the meeting shows that), but there is no basis for any "ask," except perhaps that the full Board draw its own conclusion as to whether the decision undermines the community as has been suggested. Asking for this to be on our joint meeting agenda for Durban is totally within our purview, too.
I guess that rolls up to being an objection.
Cheers,
Berard
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: [council] Draft Letter to BGC From: "Neuman, Jeff" <<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> Date: 6/17/13 1:09 pm To: "'<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>jrobinson@afilias.info'" <<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>jrobinson@afilias.info>, "'Bruce Tonkin'" <<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>, "<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council@gnso.icann.org" <<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council@gnso.icann.org> Bruce,
Thanks for forwarding this note on to the Council. Given the timing sensitivities, I would propose the Council tomorrow sending a note like the one below. Any objections?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Board Governance Committee,
As you may be aware, the GNSO Council had the opportunity to review the BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which can be found at <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendation-ncsg-16may13-en.pdf>http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendation-ncsg-16may13-en.pdf (Recommendation) during its regular monthly Council call on June 16, 2013.
Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, we have some key concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. These concerns were expressed during the Council call and on the Council mailing list and centered around the perceived potential impact of the Recommendation on the GNSO and more broadly, the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model.
We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to withdraw the arguments used to support the ultimate rejection of the Reconsideration Request, and replace the rationale with something more in line with the scope of Reconsideration Requests as outlined in the ICANN Bylaws. In addition, we ask that we continue the dialogue on the this particular matter in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Robinson GNSO Council Chair
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
From: <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 7:02 AM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... )
Bruce,
Thank-you for flagging this.
We will endeavour to provide you with this.
Jonathan
From: Bruce Tonkin [<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au]
Sent: 16 June 2013 23:52 To: <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... )
Hello Jonathan,
For information- the Board Governance Committee is meeting on Tuesday 18 June at 21:00 UTC time.
A review of the rationale for reconsideration request 13.3 is on the agenda. Any materials you can provide before then would be useful.
I am expecting that the new gTLD program committee will then consider reconsideration request 13.3 at its meeting on 25 June 2013.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
I likewise support sending something; preferred the original wording, but can accept this compromise. --Wendy On 06/18/2013 01:18 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
Given the discussion we had and the concerns voiced by many Councillors the least I would like to see is doing nothing. I am supportive of Jeff's original language as well as his amended draft.
If some of you have issues with the characterization of the discussion, I propose we can edit the following sentence:
Original wording: Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, we have some key concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation.
Proposed language: Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, some Councillors have voiced concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation.
By taking out the "we", this cannot be understood as a Council position.
Hope this helps.
Thomas
Am 18.06.2013 um 18:50 schrieb John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com>:
It is near 1 pm Eastern on June 18. What does the letter look like now?
Berard
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 18, 2013, at 10:42 AM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
John,
Good that the short version makes sense. It’s often the case as you well know!
I felt it was clear in the Council meeting of 13/06/2013n that I understood that a formal letter would need to be sent on behalf of the Council and that this was what we were discussing. I haven’t cross-checked against the transcript. However, I did cover this in my 16/06/2013 summary of the discussion and outcomes and didn’t receive any objections. Of course, it doesn’t necessarily require a vote for us to take action.
We have an unusually tight deadline in that the BGC is meeting today at 21h00 UTC. If we accept your objection, we do nothing, at least before the BGC meets. If we are to do something before the BGC meets, we need to do it fast.
Personally, I am OK to put my name next to a draft substantially similar to what Jeff has outlined below but clearly, need support from the Council if I am to do so. Is there a variation on what Jeff has written that you feel you could support reasonably well in advance of the 21h00 deadline?
Thanks,
Jonathan
From: john@crediblecontext.com [mailto:john@crediblecontext.com] Sent: 17 June 2013 23:25 To: Neuman, Jeff; 'jrobinson@afilias.info'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC
Jeff, et. al.,
Even though short, this note makes more of what happened than I heard. In as much as it was an open discussion, we didn't hear from all and we certainly took no votes, either on a proposal, motion or sense of the Council.
And I was the guy who coined the term "executivication" of decision-making at ICANN. I see the problem, but not the basis for a solution.
It is true that the Board committee's decision has sparked a bit of a controversy (the transcript of the meeting shows that), but there is no basis for any "ask," except perhaps that the full Board draw its own conclusion as to whether the decision undermines the community as has been suggested. Asking for this to be on our joint meeting agenda for Durban is totally within our purview, too.
I guess that rolls up to being an objection.
Cheers,
Berard
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: [council] Draft Letter to BGC From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> Date: 6/17/13 1:09 pm To: "'jrobinson@afilias.info'" <jrobinson@afilias.info>, "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org>
Bruce,
Thanks for forwarding this note on to the Council. Given the timing sensitivities, I would propose the Council tomorrow sending a note like the one below. Any objections?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Board Governance Committee,
As you may be aware, the GNSO Council had the opportunity to review the BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendati... (Recommendation) during its regular monthly Council call on June 16, 2013.
Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, we have some key concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. These concerns were expressed during the Council call and on the Council mailing list and centered around the perceived potential impact of the Recommendation on the GNSO and more broadly, the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model.
We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to withdraw the arguments used to support the ultimate rejection of the Reconsideration Request, and replace the rationale with something more in line with the scope of Reconsideration Requests as outlined in the ICANN Bylaws. In addition, we ask that we continue the dialogue on the this particular matter in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Robinson GNSO Council Chair
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 7:02 AM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... )
Bruce,
Thank-you for flagging this.
We will endeavour to provide you with this.
Jonathan
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: 16 June 2013 23:52 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... )
Hello Jonathan,
For information- the Board Governance Committee is meeting on Tuesday 18 June at 21:00 UTC time.
A review of the rationale for reconsideration request 13.3 is on the agenda. Any materials you can provide before then would be useful.
I am expecting that the new gTLD program committee will then consider reconsideration request 13.3 at its meeting on 25 June 2013.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
All, I have merged the latest proposals into an updated draft. Best Thomas Dear Board Governance Committee, As you may be aware, the GNSO Council had the opportunity to review the BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendati...) during its regular monthly Council call on June 16, 2013. Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, some Councillors have voiced concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. These concerns were expressed during the Council call and on the Council mailing list and centered around the perceived potential impact of the Recommendation on the GNSO and more broadly, the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model. We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to thoroughly review the rationale of the Reconsideration Request and consider deferral of the publication of the rationale until such time that a more complete discussion on this matter can take place with the community in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban.n. Sincerely, Jonathan Robinson GNSO Council Chair Am 18.06.2013 um 21:32 schrieb Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com>:
I likewise support sending something; preferred the original wording, but can accept this compromise.
--Wendy
On 06/18/2013 01:18 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
Given the discussion we had and the concerns voiced by many Councillors the least I would like to see is doing nothing. I am supportive of Jeff's original language as well as his amended draft.
If some of you have issues with the characterization of the discussion, I propose we can edit the following sentence:
Original wording: Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, we have some key concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation.
Proposed language: Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, some Councillors have voiced concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation.
By taking out the "we", this cannot be understood as a Council position.
Hope this helps.
Thomas
Am 18.06.2013 um 18:50 schrieb John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com>:
It is near 1 pm Eastern on June 18. What does the letter look like now?
Berard
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 18, 2013, at 10:42 AM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
John,
Good that the short version makes sense. It’s often the case as you well know!
I felt it was clear in the Council meeting of 13/06/2013n that I understood that a formal letter would need to be sent on behalf of the Council and that this was what we were discussing. I haven’t cross-checked against the transcript. However, I did cover this in my 16/06/2013 summary of the discussion and outcomes and didn’t receive any objections. Of course, it doesn’t necessarily require a vote for us to take action.
We have an unusually tight deadline in that the BGC is meeting today at 21h00 UTC. If we accept your objection, we do nothing, at least before the BGC meets. If we are to do something before the BGC meets, we need to do it fast.
Personally, I am OK to put my name next to a draft substantially similar to what Jeff has outlined below but clearly, need support from the Council if I am to do so. Is there a variation on what Jeff has written that you feel you could support reasonably well in advance of the 21h00 deadline?
Thanks,
Jonathan
From: john@crediblecontext.com [mailto:john@crediblecontext.com] Sent: 17 June 2013 23:25 To: Neuman, Jeff; 'jrobinson@afilias.info'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC
Jeff, et. al.,
Even though short, this note makes more of what happened than I heard. In as much as it was an open discussion, we didn't hear from all and we certainly took no votes, either on a proposal, motion or sense of the Council.
And I was the guy who coined the term "executivication" of decision-making at ICANN. I see the problem, but not the basis for a solution.
It is true that the Board committee's decision has sparked a bit of a controversy (the transcript of the meeting shows that), but there is no basis for any "ask," except perhaps that the full Board draw its own conclusion as to whether the decision undermines the community as has been suggested. Asking for this to be on our joint meeting agenda for Durban is totally within our purview, too.
I guess that rolls up to being an objection.
Cheers,
Berard
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: [council] Draft Letter to BGC From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> Date: 6/17/13 1:09 pm To: "'jrobinson@afilias.info'" <jrobinson@afilias.info>, "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org>
Bruce,
Thanks for forwarding this note on to the Council. Given the timing sensitivities, I would propose the Council tomorrow sending a note like the one below. Any objections?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Board Governance Committee,
As you may be aware, the GNSO Council had the opportunity to review the BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendati... (Recommendation) during its regular monthly Council call on June 16, 2013.
Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, we have some key concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. These concerns were expressed during the Council call and on the Council mailing list and centered around the perceived potential impact of the Recommendation on the GNSO and more broadly, the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model.
We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to withdraw the arguments used to support the ultimate rejection of the Reconsideration Request, and replace the rationale with something more in line with the scope of Reconsideration Requests as outlined in the ICANN Bylaws. In addition, we ask that we continue the dialogue on the this particular matter in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Robinson GNSO Council Chair
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 7:02 AM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... )
Bruce,
Thank-you for flagging this.
We will endeavour to provide you with this.
Jonathan
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: 16 June 2013 23:52 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... )
Hello Jonathan,
For information- the Board Governance Committee is meeting on Tuesday 18 June at 21:00 UTC time.
A review of the rationale for reconsideration request 13.3 is on the agenda. Any materials you can provide before then would be useful.
I am expecting that the new gTLD program committee will then consider reconsideration request 13.3 at its meeting on 25 June 2013.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
This has crossed wires with what I wrote in attempting to distil the conversation so far. Since it is a patchwork of the conversation on list so far, I am OK to use this instead. Jonathan From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: 18 June 2013 20:37 To: Wendy Seltzer Cc: John Berard; <jrobinson@afilias.info>; Neuman, Jeff; Bruce Tonkin; <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft Letter to BGC All, I have merged the latest proposals into an updated draft. Best Thomas Dear Board Governance Committee, As you may be aware, the GNSO Council had the opportunity to review the BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which can be found at <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendat ion-ncsg-16may13-en.pdf> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendati on-ncsg-16may13-en.pdf(Recommendation) during its regular monthly Council call on June 16, 2013. Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, some Councillors have voiced concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. These concerns were expressed during the Council call and on the Council mailing list and centered around the perceived potential impact of the Recommendation on the GNSO and more broadly, the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model. We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to thoroughly review the rationale of the Reconsideration Request and consider deferral of the publication of the rationale until such time that a more complete discussion on this matter can take place with the community in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban.n. Sincerely, Jonathan Robinson GNSO Council Chair Am 18.06.2013 um 21:32 schrieb Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com>: I likewise support sending something; preferred the original wording, but can accept this compromise. --Wendy On 06/18/2013 01:18 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote: Given the discussion we had and the concerns voiced by many Councillors the least I would like to see is doing nothing. I am supportive of Jeff's original language as well as his amended draft. If some of you have issues with the characterization of the discussion, I propose we can edit the following sentence: Original wording: Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, we have some key concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. Proposed language: Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, some Councillors have voiced concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. By taking out the "we", this cannot be understood as a Council position. Hope this helps. Thomas Am 18.06.2013 um 18:50 schrieb John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com>: It is near 1 pm Eastern on June 18. What does the letter look like now? Berard Sent from my iPhone On Jun 18, 2013, at 10:42 AM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote: John, Good that the short version makes sense. It's often the case as you well know! I felt it was clear in the Council meeting of 13/06/2013n that I understood that a formal letter would need to be sent on behalf of the Council and that this was what we were discussing. I haven't cross-checked against the transcript. However, I did cover this in my 16/06/2013 summary of the discussion and outcomes and didn't receive any objections. Of course, it doesn't necessarily require a vote for us to take action. We have an unusually tight deadline in that the BGC is meeting today at 21h00 UTC. If we accept your objection, we do nothing, at least before the BGC meets. If we are to do something before the BGC meets, we need to do it fast. Personally, I am OK to put my name next to a draft substantially similar to what Jeff has outlined below but clearly, need support from the Council if I am to do so. Is there a variation on what Jeff has written that you feel you could support reasonably well in advance of the 21h00 deadline? Thanks, Jonathan From: john@crediblecontext.com [mailto:john@crediblecontext.com] Sent: 17 June 2013 23:25 To: Neuman, Jeff; 'jrobinson@afilias.info'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC Jeff, et. al., Even though short, this note makes more of what happened than I heard. In as much as it was an open discussion, we didn't hear from all and we certainly took no votes, either on a proposal, motion or sense of the Council. And I was the guy who coined the term "executivication" of decision-making at ICANN. I see the problem, but not the basis for a solution. It is true that the Board committee's decision has sparked a bit of a controversy (the transcript of the meeting shows that), but there is no basis for any "ask," except perhaps that the full Board draw its own conclusion as to whether the decision undermines the community as has been suggested. Asking for this to be on our joint meeting agenda for Durban is totally within our purview, too. I guess that rolls up to being an objection. Cheers, Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: [council] Draft Letter to BGC From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> Date: 6/17/13 1:09 pm To: "'jrobinson@afilias.info'" <jrobinson@afilias.info>, "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Bruce, Thanks for forwarding this note on to the Council. Given the timing sensitivities, I would propose the Council tomorrow sending a note like the one below. Any objections? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dear Board Governance Committee, As you may be aware, the GNSO Council had the opportunity to review the BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendati on-ncsg-16may13-en.pdf (Recommendation) during its regular monthly Council call on June 16, 2013. Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, we have some key concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. These concerns were expressed during the Council call and on the Council mailing list and centered around the perceived potential impact of the Recommendation on the GNSO and more broadly, the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model. We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to withdraw the arguments used to support the ultimate rejection of the Reconsideration Request, and replace the rationale with something more in line with the scope of Reconsideration Requests as outlined in the ICANN Bylaws. In addition, we ask that we continue the dialogue on the this particular matter in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban. Sincerely, Jonathan Robinson GNSO Council Chair Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 7:02 AM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... ) Bruce, Thank-you for flagging this. We will endeavour to provide you with this. Jonathan From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: 16 June 2013 23:52 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... ) Hello Jonathan, For information- the Board Governance Committee is meeting on Tuesday 18 June at 21:00 UTC time. A review of the rationale for reconsideration request 13.3 is on the agenda. Any materials you can provide before then would be useful. I am expecting that the new gTLD program committee will then consider reconsideration request 13.3 at its meeting on 25 June 2013. Regards, Bruce Tonkin -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
I am fine with this. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 3:37 PM To: Wendy Seltzer Cc: John Berard; <jrobinson@afilias.info>; Neuman, Jeff; Bruce Tonkin; <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft Letter to BGC All, I have merged the latest proposals into an updated draft. Best Thomas Dear Board Governance Committee, As you may be aware, the GNSO Council had the opportunity to review the BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendati...) during its regular monthly Council call on June 16, 2013. Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, some Councillors have voiced concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. These concerns were expressed during the Council call and on the Council mailing list and centered around the perceived potential impact of the Recommendation on the GNSO and more broadly, the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model. We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to thoroughly review the rationale of the Reconsideration Request and consider deferral of the publication of the rationale until such time that a more complete discussion on this matter can take place with the community in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban.n. Sincerely, Jonathan Robinson GNSO Council Chair Am 18.06.2013 um 21:32 schrieb Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com<mailto:wendy@seltzer.com>>: I likewise support sending something; preferred the original wording, but can accept this compromise. --Wendy On 06/18/2013 01:18 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote: Given the discussion we had and the concerns voiced by many Councillors the least I would like to see is doing nothing. I am supportive of Jeff's original language as well as his amended draft. If some of you have issues with the characterization of the discussion, I propose we can edit the following sentence: Original wording: Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, we have some key concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. Proposed language: Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, some Councillors have voiced concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. By taking out the "we", this cannot be understood as a Council position. Hope this helps. Thomas Am 18.06.2013 um 18:50 schrieb John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>>: It is near 1 pm Eastern on June 18. What does the letter look like now? Berard Sent from my iPhone On Jun 18, 2013, at 10:42 AM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote: John, Good that the short version makes sense. It's often the case as you well know! I felt it was clear in the Council meeting of 13/06/2013n that I understood that a formal letter would need to be sent on behalf of the Council and that this was what we were discussing. I haven't cross-checked against the transcript. However, I did cover this in my 16/06/2013 summary of the discussion and outcomes and didn't receive any objections. Of course, it doesn't necessarily require a vote for us to take action. We have an unusually tight deadline in that the BGC is meeting today at 21h00 UTC. If we accept your objection, we do nothing, at least before the BGC meets. If we are to do something before the BGC meets, we need to do it fast. Personally, I am OK to put my name next to a draft substantially similar to what Jeff has outlined below but clearly, need support from the Council if I am to do so. Is there a variation on what Jeff has written that you feel you could support reasonably well in advance of the 21h00 deadline? Thanks, Jonathan From: john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> [mailto:john@crediblecontext.com<http://crediblecontext.com>] Sent: 17 June 2013 23:25 To: Neuman, Jeff; 'jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC Jeff, et. al., Even though short, this note makes more of what happened than I heard. In as much as it was an open discussion, we didn't hear from all and we certainly took no votes, either on a proposal, motion or sense of the Council. And I was the guy who coined the term "executivication" of decision-making at ICANN. I see the problem, but not the basis for a solution. It is true that the Board committee's decision has sparked a bit of a controversy (the transcript of the meeting shows that), but there is no basis for any "ask," except perhaps that the full Board draw its own conclusion as to whether the decision undermines the community as has been suggested. Asking for this to be on our joint meeting agenda for Durban is totally within our purview, too. I guess that rolls up to being an objection. Cheers, Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: [council] Draft Letter to BGC From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>> Date: 6/17/13 1:09 pm To: "'jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>'" <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>, "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>, "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Bruce, Thanks for forwarding this note on to the Council. Given the timing sensitivities, I would propose the Council tomorrow sending a note like the one below. Any objections? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dear Board Governance Committee, As you may be aware, the GNSO Council had the opportunity to review the BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendati... (Recommendation) during its regular monthly Council call on June 16, 2013. Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, we have some key concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. These concerns were expressed during the Council call and on the Council mailing list and centered around the perceived potential impact of the Recommendation on the GNSO and more broadly, the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model. We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to withdraw the arguments used to support the ultimate rejection of the Reconsideration Request, and replace the rationale with something more in line with the scope of Reconsideration Requests as outlined in the ICANN Bylaws. In addition, we ask that we continue the dialogue on the this particular matter in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban. Sincerely, Jonathan Robinson GNSO Council Chair Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 7:02 AM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... ) Bruce, Thank-you for flagging this. We will endeavour to provide you with this. Jonathan From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<http://melbourneit.com.au>] Sent: 16 June 2013 23:52 To: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... ) Hello Jonathan, For information- the Board Governance Committee is meeting on Tuesday 18 June at 21:00 UTC time. A review of the rationale for reconsideration request 13.3 is on the agenda. Any materials you can provide before then would be useful. I am expecting that the new gTLD program committee will then consider reconsideration request 13.3 at its meeting on 25 June 2013. Regards, Bruce Tonkin -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org<mailto:wendy@seltzer.org> +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
+1 Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Neuman, Jeff Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:44 PM To: 'Thomas Rickert' ; Wendy Seltzer Cc: John Berard ; mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info ; Bruce Tonkin ; mailto:council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC I am fine with this. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 3:37 PM To: Wendy Seltzer Cc: John Berard; <jrobinson@afilias.info>; Neuman, Jeff; Bruce Tonkin; <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft Letter to BGC All, I have merged the latest proposals into an updated draft. Best Thomas Dear Board Governance Committee, As you may be aware, the GNSO Council had the opportunity to review the BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendati...) during its regular monthly Council call on June 16, 2013. Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, some Councillors have voiced concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. These concerns were expressed during the Council call and on the Council mailing list and centered around the perceived potential impact of the Recommendation on the GNSO and more broadly, the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model. We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to thoroughly review the rationale of the Reconsideration Request and consider deferral of the publication of the rationale until such time that a more complete discussion on this matter can take place with the community in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban.n. Sincerely, Jonathan Robinson GNSO Council Chair Am 18.06.2013 um 21:32 schrieb Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com>: I likewise support sending something; preferred the original wording, but can accept this compromise. --Wendy On 06/18/2013 01:18 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote: Given the discussion we had and the concerns voiced by many Councillors the least I would like to see is doing nothing. I am supportive of Jeff's original language as well as his amended draft. If some of you have issues with the characterization of the discussion, I propose we can edit the following sentence: Original wording: Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, we have some key concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. Proposed language: Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, some Councillors have voiced concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. By taking out the "we", this cannot be understood as a Council position. Hope this helps. Thomas Am 18.06.2013 um 18:50 schrieb John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com>: It is near 1 pm Eastern on June 18. What does the letter look like now? Berard Sent from my iPhone On Jun 18, 2013, at 10:42 AM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote: John, Good that the short version makes sense. It’s often the case as you well know! I felt it was clear in the Council meeting of 13/06/2013n that I understood that a formal letter would need to be sent on behalf of the Council and that this was what we were discussing. I haven’t cross-checked against the transcript. However, I did cover this in my 16/06/2013 summary of the discussion and outcomes and didn’t receive any objections. Of course, it doesn’t necessarily require a vote for us to take action. We have an unusually tight deadline in that the BGC is meeting today at 21h00 UTC. If we accept your objection, we do nothing, at least before the BGC meets. If we are to do something before the BGC meets, we need to do it fast. Personally, I am OK to put my name next to a draft substantially similar to what Jeff has outlined below but clearly, need support from the Council if I am to do so. Is there a variation on what Jeff has written that you feel you could support reasonably well in advance of the 21h00 deadline? Thanks, Jonathan From: john@crediblecontext.com [mailto:john@crediblecontext.com] Sent: 17 June 2013 23:25 To: Neuman, Jeff; 'jrobinson@afilias.info'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC Jeff, et. al., Even though short, this note makes more of what happened than I heard. In as much as it was an open discussion, we didn't hear from all and we certainly took no votes, either on a proposal, motion or sense of the Council. And I was the guy who coined the term "executivication" of decision-making at ICANN. I see the problem, but not the basis for a solution. It is true that the Board committee's decision has sparked a bit of a controversy (the transcript of the meeting shows that), but there is no basis for any "ask," except perhaps that the full Board draw its own conclusion as to whether the decision undermines the community as has been suggested. Asking for this to be on our joint meeting agenda for Durban is totally within our purview, too. I guess that rolls up to being an objection. Cheers, Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: [council] Draft Letter to BGC From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> Date: 6/17/13 1:09 pm To: "'jrobinson@afilias.info'" <jrobinson@afilias.info>, "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Bruce, Thanks for forwarding this note on to the Council. Given the timing sensitivities, I would propose the Council tomorrow sending a note like the one below. Any objections? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dear Board Governance Committee, As you may be aware, the GNSO Council had the opportunity to review the BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendati... (Recommendation) during its regular monthly Council call on June 16, 2013. Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, we have some key concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. These concerns were expressed during the Council call and on the Council mailing list and centered around the perceived potential impact of the Recommendation on the GNSO and more broadly, the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model. We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to withdraw the arguments used to support the ultimate rejection of the Reconsideration Request, and replace the rationale with something more in line with the scope of Reconsideration Requests as outlined in the ICANN Bylaws. In addition, we ask that we continue the dialogue on the this particular matter in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban. Sincerely, Jonathan Robinson GNSO Council Chair Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 7:02 AM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... ) Bruce, Thank-you for flagging this. We will endeavour to provide you with this. Jonathan From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: 16 June 2013 23:52 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... ) Hello Jonathan, For information- the Board Governance Committee is meeting on Tuesday 18 June at 21:00 UTC time. A review of the rationale for reconsideration request 13.3 is on the agenda. Any materials you can provide before then would be useful. I am expecting that the new gTLD program committee will then consider reconsideration request 13.3 at its meeting on 25 June 2013. Regards, Bruce Tonkin -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
As am I. On Jun 18, 2013, at 12:44 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
I am fine with this.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 3:37 PM To: Wendy Seltzer Cc: John Berard; <jrobinson@afilias.info>; Neuman, Jeff; Bruce Tonkin; <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft Letter to BGC
All, I have merged the latest proposals into an updated draft.
Best Thomas
Dear Board Governance Committee,
As you may be aware, the GNSO Council had the opportunity to review the BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendati...) during its regular monthly Council call on June 16, 2013.
Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, some Councillors have voiced concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation.
These concerns were expressed during the Council call and on the Council mailing list and centered around the perceived potential impact of the Recommendation on the GNSO and more broadly, the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model.
We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to thoroughly review the rationale of the Reconsideration Request and consider deferral of the publication of the rationale until such time that a more complete discussion on this matter can take place with the community in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban.n.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Robinson GNSO Council Chair
Am 18.06.2013 um 21:32 schrieb Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com>:
I likewise support sending something; preferred the original wording, but can accept this compromise.
--Wendy
On 06/18/2013 01:18 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
Given the discussion we had and the concerns voiced by many Councillors the least I would like to see is doing nothing. I am supportive of Jeff's original language as well as his amended draft.
If some of you have issues with the characterization of the discussion, I propose we can edit the following sentence:
Original wording: Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, we have some key concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation.
Proposed language: Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, some Councillors have voiced concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation.
By taking out the "we", this cannot be understood as a Council position.
Hope this helps.
Thomas
Am 18.06.2013 um 18:50 schrieb John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com>:
It is near 1 pm Eastern on June 18. What does the letter look like now?
Berard
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 18, 2013, at 10:42 AM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
John,
Good that the short version makes sense. It’s often the case as you well know!
I felt it was clear in the Council meeting of 13/06/2013n that I understood that a formal letter would need to be sent on behalf of the Council and that this was what we were discussing. I haven’t cross-checked against the transcript. However, I did cover this in my 16/06/2013 summary of the discussion and outcomes and didn’t receive any objections. Of course, it doesn’t necessarily require a vote for us to take action.
We have an unusually tight deadline in that the BGC is meeting today at 21h00 UTC. If we accept your objection, we do nothing, at least before the BGC meets. If we are to do something before the BGC meets, we need to do it fast.
Personally, I am OK to put my name next to a draft substantially similar to what Jeff has outlined below but clearly, need support from the Council if I am to do so. Is there a variation on what Jeff has written that you feel you could support reasonably well in advance of the 21h00 deadline?
Thanks,
Jonathan
From: john@crediblecontext.com [mailto:john@crediblecontext.com] Sent: 17 June 2013 23:25 To: Neuman, Jeff; 'jrobinson@afilias.info'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC
Jeff, et. al.,
Even though short, this note makes more of what happened than I heard. In as much as it was an open discussion, we didn't hear from all and we certainly took no votes, either on a proposal, motion or sense of the Council.
And I was the guy who coined the term "executivication" of decision-making at ICANN. I see the problem, but not the basis for a solution.
It is true that the Board committee's decision has sparked a bit of a controversy (the transcript of the meeting shows that), but there is no basis for any "ask," except perhaps that the full Board draw its own conclusion as to whether the decision undermines the community as has been suggested. Asking for this to be on our joint meeting agenda for Durban is totally within our purview, too.
I guess that rolls up to being an objection.
Cheers,
Berard
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: [council] Draft Letter to BGC From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> Date: 6/17/13 1:09 pm To: "'jrobinson@afilias.info'" <jrobinson@afilias.info>, "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org>
Bruce,
Thanks for forwarding this note on to the Council. Given the timing sensitivities, I would propose the Council tomorrow sending a note like the one below. Any objections?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Board Governance Committee,
As you may be aware, the GNSO Council had the opportunity to review the BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which can be found athttp://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendati... (Recommendation) during its regular monthly Council call on June 16, 2013.
Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, we have some key concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. These concerns were expressed during the Council call and on the Council mailing list and centered around the perceived potential impact of the Recommendation on the GNSO and more broadly, the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model.
We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to withdraw the arguments used to support the ultimate rejection of the Reconsideration Request, and replace the rationale with something more in line with the scope of Reconsideration Requests as outlined in the ICANN Bylaws. In addition, we ask that we continue the dialogue on the this particular matter in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Robinson GNSO Council Chair
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 7:02 AM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... )
Bruce,
Thank-you for flagging this.
We will endeavour to provide you with this.
Jonathan
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: 16 June 2013 23:52 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... )
Hello Jonathan,
For information- the Board Governance Committee is meeting on Tuesday 18 June at 21:00 UTC time.
A review of the rationale for reconsideration request 13.3 is on the agenda. Any materials you can provide before then would be useful.
I am expecting that the new gTLD program committee will then consider reconsideration request 13.3 at its meeting on 25 June 2013.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
No objection. Berard Sent from my iPhone On Jun 18, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
All, I have merged the latest proposals into an updated draft.
Best Thomas
Dear Board Governance Committee,
As you may be aware, the GNSO Council had the opportunity to review the BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendati...) during its regular monthly Council call on June 16, 2013.
Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, some Councillors have voiced concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation.
These concerns were expressed during the Council call and on the Council mailing list and centered around the perceived potential impact of the Recommendation on the GNSO and more broadly, the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model.
We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to thoroughly review the rationale of the Reconsideration Request and consider deferral of the publication of the rationale until such time that a more complete discussion on this matter can take place with the community in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban.n.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Robinson GNSO Council Chair
Am 18.06.2013 um 21:32 schrieb Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com>:
I likewise support sending something; preferred the original wording, but can accept this compromise.
--Wendy
On 06/18/2013 01:18 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
Given the discussion we had and the concerns voiced by many Councillors the least I would like to see is doing nothing. I am supportive of Jeff's original language as well as his amended draft.
If some of you have issues with the characterization of the discussion, I propose we can edit the following sentence:
Original wording: Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, we have some key concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation.
Proposed language: Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, some Councillors have voiced concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation.
By taking out the "we", this cannot be understood as a Council position.
Hope this helps.
Thomas
Am 18.06.2013 um 18:50 schrieb John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com>:
It is near 1 pm Eastern on June 18. What does the letter look like now?
Berard
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 18, 2013, at 10:42 AM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
John,
Good that the short version makes sense. It’s often the case as you well know!
I felt it was clear in the Council meeting of 13/06/2013n that I understood that a formal letter would need to be sent on behalf of the Council and that this was what we were discussing. I haven’t cross-checked against the transcript. However, I did cover this in my 16/06/2013 summary of the discussion and outcomes and didn’t receive any objections. Of course, it doesn’t necessarily require a vote for us to take action.
We have an unusually tight deadline in that the BGC is meeting today at 21h00 UTC. If we accept your objection, we do nothing, at least before the BGC meets. If we are to do something before the BGC meets, we need to do it fast.
Personally, I am OK to put my name next to a draft substantially similar to what Jeff has outlined below but clearly, need support from the Council if I am to do so. Is there a variation on what Jeff has written that you feel you could support reasonably well in advance of the 21h00 deadline?
Thanks,
Jonathan
From: john@crediblecontext.com [mailto:john@crediblecontext.com] Sent: 17 June 2013 23:25 To: Neuman, Jeff; 'jrobinson@afilias.info'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC
Jeff, et. al.,
Even though short, this note makes more of what happened than I heard. In as much as it was an open discussion, we didn't hear from all and we certainly took no votes, either on a proposal, motion or sense of the Council.
And I was the guy who coined the term "executivication" of decision-making at ICANN. I see the problem, but not the basis for a solution.
It is true that the Board committee's decision has sparked a bit of a controversy (the transcript of the meeting shows that), but there is no basis for any "ask," except perhaps that the full Board draw its own conclusion as to whether the decision undermines the community as has been suggested. Asking for this to be on our joint meeting agenda for Durban is totally within our purview, too.
I guess that rolls up to being an objection.
Cheers,
Berard
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: [council] Draft Letter to BGC From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> Date: 6/17/13 1:09 pm To: "'jrobinson@afilias.info'" <jrobinson@afilias.info>, "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org>
Bruce,
Thanks for forwarding this note on to the Council. Given the timing sensitivities, I would propose the Council tomorrow sending a note like the one below. Any objections?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Board Governance Committee,
As you may be aware, the GNSO Council had the opportunity to review the BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendati... (Recommendation) during its regular monthly Council call on June 16, 2013.
Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, we have some key concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. These concerns were expressed during the Council call and on the Council mailing list and centered around the perceived potential impact of the Recommendation on the GNSO and more broadly, the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model.
We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to withdraw the arguments used to support the ultimate rejection of the Reconsideration Request, and replace the rationale with something more in line with the scope of Reconsideration Requests as outlined in the ICANN Bylaws. In addition, we ask that we continue the dialogue on the this particular matter in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Robinson GNSO Council Chair
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 7:02 AM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... )
Bruce,
Thank-you for flagging this.
We will endeavour to provide you with this.
Jonathan
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: 16 June 2013 23:52 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... )
Hello Jonathan,
For information- the Board Governance Committee is meeting on Tuesday 18 June at 21:00 UTC time.
A review of the rationale for reconsideration request 13.3 is on the agenda. Any materials you can provide before then would be useful.
I am expecting that the new gTLD program committee will then consider reconsideration request 13.3 at its meeting on 25 June 2013.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
Thanks to all who contributed to this rapid exchange of views and positions. Jonathan From: John Berard [mailto:john@crediblecontext.com] Sent: 18 June 2013 22:44 To: Thomas Rickert Cc: Wendy Seltzer; <jrobinson@afilias.info>; Neuman, Jeff; Bruce Tonkin; <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Draft Letter to BGC No objection. Berard Sent from my iPhone On Jun 18, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote: All, I have merged the latest proposals into an updated draft. Best Thomas Dear Board Governance Committee, As you may be aware, the GNSO Council had the opportunity to review the BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which can be found at <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendation-ncsg-16may13-en.pdf> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendati...) during its regular monthly Council call on June 16, 2013. Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, some Councillors have voiced concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. These concerns were expressed during the Council call and on the Council mailing list and centered around the perceived potential impact of the Recommendation on the GNSO and more broadly, the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model. We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to thoroughly review the rationale of the Reconsideration Request and consider deferral of the publication of the rationale until such time that a more complete discussion on this matter can take place with the community in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban.n. Sincerely, Jonathan Robinson GNSO Council Chair Am 18.06.2013 um 21:32 schrieb Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com>: I likewise support sending something; preferred the original wording, but can accept this compromise. --Wendy On 06/18/2013 01:18 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote: Given the discussion we had and the concerns voiced by many Councillors the least I would like to see is doing nothing. I am supportive of Jeff's original language as well as his amended draft. If some of you have issues with the characterization of the discussion, I propose we can edit the following sentence: Original wording: Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, we have some key concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. Proposed language: Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, some Councillors have voiced concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. By taking out the "we", this cannot be understood as a Council position. Hope this helps. Thomas Am 18.06.2013 um 18:50 schrieb John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com>: It is near 1 pm Eastern on June 18. What does the letter look like now? Berard Sent from my iPhone On Jun 18, 2013, at 10:42 AM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote: John, Good that the short version makes sense. It’s often the case as you well know! I felt it was clear in the Council meeting of 13/06/2013n that I understood that a formal letter would need to be sent on behalf of the Council and that this was what we were discussing. I haven’t cross-checked against the transcript. However, I did cover this in my 16/06/2013 summary of the discussion and outcomes and didn’t receive any objections. Of course, it doesn’t necessarily require a vote for us to take action. We have an unusually tight deadline in that the BGC is meeting today at 21h00 UTC. If we accept your objection, we do nothing, at least before the BGC meets. If we are to do something before the BGC meets, we need to do it fast. Personally, I am OK to put my name next to a draft substantially similar to what Jeff has outlined below but clearly, need support from the Council if I am to do so. Is there a variation on what Jeff has written that you feel you could support reasonably well in advance of the 21h00 deadline? Thanks, Jonathan From: john@crediblecontext.com [mailto:john@crediblecontext.com] Sent: 17 June 2013 23:25 To: Neuman, Jeff; 'jrobinson@afilias.info'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft Letter to BGC Jeff, et. al., Even though short, this note makes more of what happened than I heard. In as much as it was an open discussion, we didn't hear from all and we certainly took no votes, either on a proposal, motion or sense of the Council. And I was the guy who coined the term "executivication" of decision-making at ICANN. I see the problem, but not the basis for a solution. It is true that the Board committee's decision has sparked a bit of a controversy (the transcript of the meeting shows that), but there is no basis for any "ask," except perhaps that the full Board draw its own conclusion as to whether the decision undermines the community as has been suggested. Asking for this to be on our joint meeting agenda for Durban is totally within our purview, too. I guess that rolls up to being an objection. Cheers, Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: [council] Draft Letter to BGC From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> Date: 6/17/13 1:09 pm To: "'jrobinson@afilias.info'" <jrobinson@afilias.info>, "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Bruce, Thanks for forwarding this note on to the Council. Given the timing sensitivities, I would propose the Council tomorrow sending a note like the one below. Any objections? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dear Board Governance Committee, As you may be aware, the GNSO Council had the opportunity to review the BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendati... (Recommendation) during its regular monthly Council call on June 16, 2013. Although the Council in no way intends to interfere with outcomes of Reconsideration Requests in general, we have some key concerns with the implications of the rationale used by the BGC in support of the Recommendation. These concerns were expressed during the Council call and on the Council mailing list and centered around the perceived potential impact of the Recommendation on the GNSO and more broadly, the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model. We therefore respectfully ask the BGC to withdraw the arguments used to support the ultimate rejection of the Reconsideration Request, and replace the rationale with something more in line with the scope of Reconsideration Requests as outlined in the ICANN Bylaws. In addition, we ask that we continue the dialogue on the this particular matter in July at the ICANN meeting in Durban. Sincerely, Jonathan Robinson GNSO Council Chair Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 7:02 AM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... ) Bruce, Thank-you for flagging this. We will endeavour to provide you with this. Jonathan From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: 16 June 2013 23:52 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... ) Hello Jonathan, For information- the Board Governance Committee is meeting on Tuesday 18 June at 21:00 UTC time. A review of the rationale for reconsideration request 13.3 is on the agenda. Any materials you can provide before then would be useful. I am expecting that the new gTLD program committee will then consider reconsideration request 13.3 at its meeting on 25 June 2013. Regards, Bruce Tonkin -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
participants (11)
-
Alan Greenberg -
John Berard -
john＠crediblecontext.com
-
Jonathan Robinson -
Mason Cole -
Neuman, Jeff -
Novoa, Osvaldo -
Thomas Rickert -
Volker Greimann -
Wendy Seltzer -
WUKnoben