FW: [council] FW: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter)
Here’s is Jeff’s response to my message. Chuck From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 1:19 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Mary Wong; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] FW: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter) Thanks Chuck. In my note I did explicitly state that the opinions expressed were my own and not on behalf of my employer or the RySG. I am also sorry that you are taking this as an indication of lack of trust in our Councilors. This is not about trust at all, but about being a consensus driven bottom-up organization. We elect Councilors to represent the SG position where in fact we have had time to consider and come to an SG opinion. Any comments on the cross-constituency list so we can have this discussion as opposed to me asking you to post to the Council list (which I know is a pain and I do appreciate). Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 12:27 PM To: Neuman, Jeff; Mary Wong; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] FW: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter) Jeff, It seems to me that you should determine whether the RySG supports your concern just like Mary did with the NCSG. I, for one, think what you are proposing would impede the Council. If every time an amendment is made there needs to be comment period, where does it end? If we cannot trust our representatives with some common sense, then we have bigger problems. Chuck From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 12:18 PM To: Mary Wong; GNSO Council; Gomes, Chuck Subject: RE: [council] FW: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter) Thanks Mary. I cannot post to the Council list, so I ask you to post my reply. I appreciate your sentiments, but I think the language is too broad and may be used by some for purposes other than which you intended. Perhaps these things do not need to go out for a “public comment” period as we normally think of those words, but there should be time to discuss with our stakeholder groups especially if it relates to policy. The fact that your proposed amendment was discussed by the NCSG prior to meeting is great for your SG, but it was never discussed with our SG and in fact, the resolution does not even really relate to the substance of string similarity. If anything, it should not have been an amendment, but rather should have been a wholly new motion and separately addressed. We need to focus on issues as a community. We need to have a cross stakeholder group list where these issues can be discussed in the open rather than being surprised at a Council meeting that one SG wants an amendment added to a motion. I will ask, as I do every year, for a new mailing list to be set up that facilitates true cross-community communication. The other issue is that when the GNSO Council sends a letter, or even the Chair sends a letter, there is an assumption and perception that the entire GNSO Community supports the substance of what has been communicated. One only needs to look at ICANN staff reports that refer to letters that have been submitted in the past to see this is the case. So, if others non-GNSO community members are going to assume that when such a letter is sent that it is supported by the GNSO community, isn’t there an obligation by the GNSO Council to make sure that it actually is. My goal is not to impede the Council, but rather to ensure the appropriate level of feedback from each of the SGs. Does that mean things may take more time? Sure. But I have yet to see any circumstance the Council has acted on that was of sufficient urgency that at least some time period of consultation could not be afforded. Thanks for your consideration. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: Mary Wong [mailto:MWong@piercelaw.edu] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 11:36 AM To: GNSO Council; Chuck Gomes Cc: Neuman, Jeff Subject: Re: [council] FW: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter) Thanks for forwarding this, Chuck. Jeff and everyone, as the person who proposed the "FURTHER RESOLVED" language in the resolution, let me explain that my intent was most definitely not to elevate the Council's role, much less to lessen the importance and input from the community that the Council represents. Although this particular resolution (and accompanying letter) dealt with an issue of huge importance to everyone, I was concerned that it could be taken in the future as an indication that everything the Council sends out to any ICANN Board/staff member, constituent or other body must necessarily first be subject to a public comment period. In other words, my thought was that the Council should not be impeded in its discussions or decisions by a "requirement" that, while not mandated by any bylaw or operating rule/procedure, becomes - through time and/or practice - a rule, especially as Council letters may concern a wide variety of topics (from coordination with other ACSOs to substantive major issues like this particular one). I fully agree that the Council not only represents the GNSO community, but must act in full consultation with it and that each Councillor ought to act in the best interests of the community he/she represents. This is especially so in the new GNSO environment, where the Council is clearly not supposed to be a legislative body but more of a management team. Finally, you may be interested to know that my addition to the resolution was discussed among, and approved by, the NCSG prior to the Council meeting. As such, it was something I proposed as a representative of the views of the community that I was elected by! I hope this clarifies matters somewhat. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong@piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> To: "GNSO Council" <council@gnso.icann.org> CC: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> Date: 6/15/2010 10:58 AM Subject: [council] FW: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter) I am forwarded this to the Council list as requested by Jeff. Chuck From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 10:19 AM To: bcute@afilias.info; becky.burr@wilmerhale.com; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Gomes, Chuck Subject: FW: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter) All, Can I ask that this comment is submitted to the Accountability and Review Team? It is submitted in response to the GNSO Resolution on String Similarity.( http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jun10-en.htm) and more particularly to the specific GNSO Resolution in posting the letter out for comment. Chuck – Can you also please post to the Council for me as well? Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: Neuman, Jeff Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 10:15 AM To: string-similarity-amendment@icann.org Cc: Neuman, Jeff Subject: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter) All, This comment is being submitted in my personal capacity and not on behalf of my employer, Neustar, Inc., or the Registries Stakeholder Group. In addition, my comment is not on the draft letter itself, as those comments, if any, will be submitted through the RySG, but rather relates to the resolution passed by the GNSO Council requesting that the letter go out for public comment. More specifically, at the last minute, and without any discussion by the community, the GNSO Council included the following language: “FURTHER RESOLVED, that this motion shall not serve as a precedent requiring the GNSO Council to adhere to a public comment period requirement for any future GNSO Council letters.” Not only has no explanation been given for this last minute addition, but I believe the statement is fundamentally flawed on a number of different levels. It is not the GNSO Council’s role to decide what does and does not go out for public comment when it relates to policy (as this letter clearly does). That role should be specifically reserved for the GNSO community. The GNSO Council’s authority, as documented in the Bylaws, is generated from the people and communities in which it serves. This has been said over and over again, but the Council is NOT a legislature that has the right to make proclamations, policy decisions, etc., without having to go back to the GNSO community. This is supposed to be a bottom-up organization where policy is developed through individuals, working groups, experts, etc. and then brought to the Council for it to manage, not the other way around. To the extent that any “letters” are submitted by the Council to any external party, and those letters relate to policy, then yes they do need to go out for community input. If they merely relate to administrative of true coordination matters, then they do not need to go out for comment. As one of the main catalysts for getting this letter out for public comment, I thank the Council for doing the right thing and posting this for comment. It is what should happen with ALL letters that relate to policy. I am not sure why the GNSO Council felt it was necessary to include this “further resolution”, but to the extent that it reflects the presumption that Council does not have to go back to the community when it issues letters relating to policy, I ask that the resolution be stricken from the record. I ask that this issue be considered by the appropriate GNSO Improvements team and am also submitting this separately to the Accountability and Review team for its consideration. I would also ask that this be discussed at the Council meeting in Brussels and would be happy to personally address during that meeting. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman@neustar.biz <mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. <http://www.piercelaw.edu/>
This Chuck for posting this. I agree with Adrian and others who have expressed the view that this is a topic we need to discuss. I also agree with you that some measure of common sense is needed. Councillors are elected representatives. There are cases when time is too short to consult fully with our respective groups. We should have the trust of those groups and be able to act accordingly. I think I can say with some confidence that the RrSG Councillors do have the trust of their group in this regard. Thanks, Stéphane Le 16 juin 2010 à 01:13, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
Here’s is Jeff’s response to my message.
Chuck
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 1:19 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Mary Wong; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] FW: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter)
Thanks Chuck. In my note I did explicitly state that the opinions expressed were my own and not on behalf of my employer or the RySG. I am also sorry that you are taking this as an indication of lack of trust in our Councilors. This is not about trust at all, but about being a consensus driven bottom-up organization. We elect Councilors to represent the SG position where in fact we have had time to consider and come to an SG opinion.
Any comments on the cross-constituency list so we can have this discussion as opposed to me asking you to post to the Council list (which I know is a pain and I do appreciate).
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 12:27 PM To: Neuman, Jeff; Mary Wong; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] FW: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter)
Jeff,
It seems to me that you should determine whether the RySG supports your concern just like Mary did with the NCSG.
I, for one, think what you are proposing would impede the Council. If every time an amendment is made there needs to be comment period, where does it end? If we cannot trust our representatives with some common sense, then we have bigger problems.
Chuck
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 12:18 PM To: Mary Wong; GNSO Council; Gomes, Chuck Subject: RE: [council] FW: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter)
Thanks Mary. I cannot post to the Council list, so I ask you to post my reply.
I appreciate your sentiments, but I think the language is too broad and may be used by some for purposes other than which you intended. Perhaps these things do not need to go out for a “public comment” period as we normally think of those words, but there should be time to discuss with our stakeholder groups especially if it relates to policy. The fact that your proposed amendment was discussed by the NCSG prior to meeting is great for your SG, but it was never discussed with our SG and in fact, the resolution does not even really relate to the substance of string similarity. If anything, it should not have been an amendment, but rather should have been a wholly new motion and separately addressed. We need to focus on issues as a community. We need to have a cross stakeholder group list where these issues can be discussed in the open rather than being surprised at a Council meeting that one SG wants an amendment added to a motion. I will ask, as I do every year, for a new mailing list to be set up that facilitates true cross-community communication.
The other issue is that when the GNSO Council sends a letter, or even the Chair sends a letter, there is an assumption and perception that the entire GNSO Community supports the substance of what has been communicated. One only needs to look at ICANN staff reports that refer to letters that have been submitted in the past to see this is the case. So, if others non-GNSO community members are going to assume that when such a letter is sent that it is supported by the GNSO community, isn’t there an obligation by the GNSO Council to make sure that it actually is.
My goal is not to impede the Council, but rather to ensure the appropriate level of feedback from each of the SGs. Does that mean things may take more time? Sure. But I have yet to see any circumstance the Council has acted on that was of sufficient urgency that at least some time period of consultation could not be afforded.
Thanks for your consideration.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
From: Mary Wong [mailto:MWong@piercelaw.edu] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 11:36 AM To: GNSO Council; Chuck Gomes Cc: Neuman, Jeff Subject: Re: [council] FW: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter)
Thanks for forwarding this, Chuck.
Jeff and everyone, as the person who proposed the "FURTHER RESOLVED" language in the resolution, let me explain that my intent was most definitely not to elevate the Council's role, much less to lessen the importance and input from the community that the Council represents. Although this particular resolution (and accompanying letter) dealt with an issue of huge importance to everyone, I was concerned that it could be taken in the future as an indication that everything the Council sends out to any ICANN Board/staff member, constituent or other body must necessarily first be subject to a public comment period.
In other words, my thought was that the Council should not be impeded in its discussions or decisions by a "requirement" that, while not mandated by any bylaw or operating rule/procedure, becomes - through time and/or practice - a rule, especially as Council letters may concern a wide variety of topics (from coordination with other ACSOs to substantive major issues like this particular one).
I fully agree that the Council not only represents the GNSO community, but must act in full consultation with it and that each Councillor ought to act in the best interests of the community he/she represents. This is especially so in the new GNSO environment, where the Council is clearly not supposed to be a legislative body but more of a management team.
Finally, you may be interested to know that my addition to the resolution was discussed among, and approved by, the NCSG prior to the Council meeting. As such, it was something I proposed as a representative of the views of the community that I was elected by!
I hope this clarifies matters somewhat.
Cheers Mary
Mary W S Wong Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong@piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> To: "GNSO Council" <council@gnso.icann.org> CC: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> Date: 6/15/2010 10:58 AM Subject: [council] FW: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter) I am forwarded this to the Council list as requested by Jeff.
Chuck
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 10:19 AM To: bcute@afilias.info; becky.burr@wilmerhale.com; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Gomes, Chuck Subject: FW: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter)
All,
Can I ask that this comment is submitted to the Accountability and Review Team? It is submitted in response to the GNSO Resolution on String Similarity.(http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jun10-en.htm) and more particularly to the specific GNSO Resolution in posting the letter out for comment.
Chuck – Can you also please post to the Council for me as well?
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
From: Neuman, Jeff Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 10:15 AM To: string-similarity-amendment@icann.org Cc: Neuman, Jeff Subject: Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter)
All,
This comment is being submitted in my personal capacity and not on behalf of my employer, Neustar, Inc., or the Registries Stakeholder Group. In addition, my comment is not on the draft letter itself, as those comments, if any, will be submitted through the RySG, but rather relates to the resolution passed by the GNSO Council requesting that the letter go out for public comment.
More specifically, at the last minute, and without any discussion by the community, the GNSO Council included the following language:
“FURTHER RESOLVED, that this motion shall not serve as a precedent requiring the GNSO Council to adhere to a public comment period requirement for any future GNSO Council letters.”
Not only has no explanation been given for this last minute addition, but I believe the statement is fundamentally flawed on a number of different levels. It is not the GNSO Council’s role to decide what does and does not go out for public comment when it relates to policy (as this letter clearly does). That role should be specifically reserved for the GNSO community. The GNSO Council’s authority, as documented in the Bylaws, is generated from the people and communities in which it serves. This has been said over and over again, but the Council is NOT a legislature that has the right to make proclamations, policy decisions, etc., without having to go back to the GNSO community. This is supposed to be a bottom-up organization where policy is developed through individuals, working groups, experts, etc. and then brought to the Council for it to manage, not the other way around. To the extent that any “letters” are submitted by the Council to any external party, and those letters relate to policy, then yes they do need to go out for community input. If they merely relate to administrative of true coordination matters, then they do not need to go out for comment.
As one of the main catalysts for getting this letter out for public comment, I thank the Council for doing the right thing and posting this for comment. It is what should happen with ALL letters that relate to policy. I am not sure why the GNSO Council felt it was necessary to include this “further resolution”, but to the extent that it reflects the presumption that Council does not have to go back to the community when it issues letters relating to policy, I ask that the resolution be stricken from the record. I ask that this issue be considered by the appropriate GNSO Improvements team and am also submitting this separately to the Accountability and Review team for its consideration. I would also ask that this be discussed at the Council meeting in Brussels and would be happy to personally address during that meeting.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
<image001.jpg>
participants (2)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
Stéphane Van Gelder