Thanks to David, Alan, John and Brian - this looks good to me. Cheers Mary Sent from a mobile device; please excuse brevity and any grammatical or typographical errors. "Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> wrote: Please see revised draft below with correction suggested by Alan and with Johns suggestion which I think is helpful. Kind regards, Brian J. Winterfeldt Partner bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> Steptoe From: John Berard [mailto:john@crediblecontext.com] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 5:40 AM To: Winterfeldt, Brian Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft language Brian, Note my boldface suggestion: The GNSO Council wishes to express its disappointment with the Board's decision to meet in a closed session on Saturday 23 June to vote on a topic which was slated for discussion at the public forum on Thursday, January 28, 2012 :http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2. ICANN staff had placed the topic of the renewal of the .com Agreement on the Thursday public forum agenda some time ago, and this item remains on the public forum agenda tomorrow. We are aware that of a number of GNSO constituencies, stakeholder groups and/or Advisory Committees that were looking forward to addressing this subject with the board and the ICANN community at the Public Forum. However, although the GNSO Council and its constituencies were aware of the Board's intent to discuss the contract, we were not aware of its intent to approve the contract at its closed session. This comment is not with regard to the merits of the Boards action, it is for the constituencies or stakeholder groups to highlight those as they see fit. However, we, the GNSO Council, find the process followed by the Board to be objectionable at a time when we are all being urged to advocate for the ICANN model at time of increased global scrutiny, and its is therefore imperative that the Board hold itself to the highest standards of transparency and accountability that it is mandated to uphold. On Jun 28, 2012, at 10:52 AM, "Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com>> wrote: Jeff As requested, how about the below draft: The GNSO Council wishes to express its disappointment with the Board's decision to meet in a closed session on Saturday 23 June to vote on a topic which was slated for discussion at the public forum on Thursday, January 28, 2012 : http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2. ICANN staff had placed the topic of the renewal of the .com Agreement on the Thursday public forum agenda some time ago, and this item remains on the public forum agenda tomorrow. We are aware that of a number of GNSO constituencies, stakeholder groups and/or Advisory Committees that were looking forward to addressing this subject with the board and the ICANN community at the Public Forum. However, neither the GNSO Council nor its constituencies, stakeholder groups or liaisons were aware of the Board's closed session and adoption of the draft agreement This comment is not with regard to the merits of the Boards action, it is for the constituencies or stakeholder groups to highlight those as they see fit. However, we, the GNSO Council, find the process followed by the Board to be objectionable at a time when the private sector is being urged to advocate for the ICANN model, and its is therefore imperative that the Board hold itself to the highest standards of transparency and accountability that it is mandated to uphold. Hope helpful. Kind regards Brian J. Winterfeldt Partner bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> Steptoe +1 202 429 6260 direct +1 202 903 4422 mobile +1 202 429 3902 fax Steptoe & Johnson LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 www.steptoe.com<http://www.steptoe.com/> This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm Steptoe & Johnson LLP that may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message.
Thanks to all. I have included a few edits. Is everyone OK with this version?
The GNSO Council wishes to express its disappointment with the Board's decision to meet in a closed session on Saturday 23 June to vote on a topic which was slated for discussion at the public forum on Thursday, January 28, 2012 :http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2.
ICANN staff had placed the topic of the renewal of the .com Agreement on the Thursday public forum agenda some time ago, and this item remains on the public forum agenda. We are aware that of a number of GNSO constituencies, stakeholder groups and/or Advisory Committees that were looking forward to addressing this subject with the board and the ICANN community at the Public Forum. However, although the GNSO Council and its constituencies were aware of the Board's intent to discuss the contract, we were not aware of its intent to approve the contract at its closed session.
This comment is not with regard to the merits of the Board’s action, it is for the constituencies or stakeholder groups to highlight those as they see fit. However, we, the GNSO Council, find the process followed by the Board to be objectionable at a time when we are all being urged to advocate for the ICANN model in a context of increased global scrutiny. It is therefore imperative that the Board hold itself to the highest standards of transparency and accountability that it is mandated to uphold.
Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Le 28 juin 2012 à 16:20, <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> a écrit :
Thanks to David, Alan, John and Brian - this looks good to me.
Cheers Mary
Sent from a mobile device; please excuse brevity and any grammatical or typographical errors.
"Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> wrote:
Please see revised draft below with correction suggested by Alan and with John’s suggestion which I think is helpful.
Kind regards,
Brian J. Winterfeldt Partner bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> Steptoe
From: John Berard [mailto:john@crediblecontext.com] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 5:40 AM To: Winterfeldt, Brian Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft language
Brian,
Note my boldface suggestion:
The GNSO Council wishes to express its disappointment with the Board's decision to meet in a closed session on Saturday 23 June to vote on a topic which was slated for discussion at the public forum on Thursday, January 28, 2012 :http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2.
ICANN staff had placed the topic of the renewal of the .com Agreement on the Thursday public forum agenda some time ago, and this item remains on the public forum agenda tomorrow. We are aware that of a number of GNSO constituencies, stakeholder groups and/or Advisory Committees that were looking forward to addressing this subject with the board and the ICANN community at the Public Forum. However, although the GNSO Council and its constituencies were aware of the Board's intent to discuss the contract, we were not aware of its intent to approve the contract at its closed session.
This comment is not with regard to the merits of the Board’s action, it is for the constituencies or stakeholder groups to highlight those as they see fit. However, we, the GNSO Council, find the process followed by the Board to be objectionable at a time when we are all being urged to advocate for the ICANN model at time of increased global scrutiny, and its is therefore imperative that the Board hold itself to the highest standards of transparency and accountability that it is mandated to uphold.
On Jun 28, 2012, at 10:52 AM, "Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com>> wrote: Jeff
As requested, how about the below draft:
The GNSO Council wishes to express its disappointment with the Board's decision to meet in a closed session on Saturday 23 June to vote on a topic which was slated for discussion at the public forum on Thursday, January 28, 2012 : http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2.
ICANN staff had placed the topic of the renewal of the .com Agreement on the Thursday public forum agenda some time ago, and this item remains on the public forum agenda tomorrow. We are aware that of a number of GNSO constituencies, stakeholder groups and/or Advisory Committees that were looking forward to addressing this subject with the board and the ICANN community at the Public Forum. However, neither the GNSO Council nor its constituencies, stakeholder groups or liaisons were aware of the Board's closed session and adoption of the draft agreement
This comment is not with regard to the merits of the Board’s action, it is for the constituencies or stakeholder groups to highlight those as they see fit. However, we, the GNSO Council, find the process followed by the Board to be objectionable at a time when the private sector is being urged to advocate for the ICANN model, and its is therefore imperative that the Board hold itself to the highest standards of transparency and accountability that it is mandated to uphold.
Hope helpful.
Kind regards
Brian J. Winterfeldt Partner bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> Steptoe
+1 202 429 6260 direct +1 202 903 4422 mobile +1 202 429 3902 fax
Steptoe & Johnson LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 www.steptoe.com<http://www.steptoe.com/>
This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm Steptoe & Johnson LLP that may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message.
participants (2)
-
Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu -
Stéphane Van Gelder