Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Private GNSO Council meeting with Board on VI

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

hi all,

i agree with Jeff and Antony.  while this is an important issue, i really want 
to focus our face-to-face meeting on VI and leave this discussion for another 
day (and another venue, as i think this is a broader "who does what while a 
Working Group is working" issue).  

i would also like echo the call for some reporting-out-to-the-list by WG 
members who participated in the meetings (there were really two -- the 
GNSO/Board dinner meeting, which generated the followup meeting).  Stephane, 
Kristina, Tim?  can you guys put your heads together and give us an update on 
what happened?  we do need to hear about that as background for our meeting 
tomorrow.

thanks,

mikey


On Jun 23, 2010, at 8:31 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> Agree that this issue should not dominate the Thursday meeting.  I will be 
> bringing up the blatant attempt to end-around the PDP in other places 
> especially as I have become incredibly sensitized to the PDP in serving as 
> the chair of the PDP-WT for the past year+. 
>  
> That said, I am still waiting for a summary of what was discussed.  If the 
> Councilors on this group would like to document what was discussed on e-mail 
> today, we do not have to take any time discussing it on Thursday.  So if the 
> Councilors on this WG could please reply with a summary, then at least with 
> respect to this subject in this WG, the issue can be put behind us.
>  
> 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: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Antony Van Couvering
> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 8:01 AM
> To: Ron Andruff
> Cc: 'Gomes, Chuck'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Private GNSO Council meeting with Board on VI
>  
> We have a lot of work to do.  I would not like to see the in-person meeting 
> on Thursday dominated by this question, or indeed to spend any time on it 
> during this precious face-to-face time.  
>  
> I feel compelled to note, however, that it is highly dispiriting to commit to 
> hard work, and then spend months doing it, only to find that someone is doing 
> an end-around, whatever the reasons.  If people are to do the work, they must 
> have trust in the process.   Corrosion of trust is very difficult to repair.  
>  
> Having been on the receiving end of patronizing lectures from councillors 
> about why such-and-such is impossible because it would violate a certain 
> sub-sub-paragraph of GNSO rules, I am more than a little annoyed to find that 
> when it is convenient, the entire council has apparently disregarded the 
> major principle of the GNSO -- bottom-up policy development -- without so 
> much as a whimper.   I have no doubt that it was done with the best of 
> intentions -- but don't we all feel that we act with the best of intentions?
>  
> I for one would like to see a thorough explanation, but at a later time, in 
> the bright light of day.  Our in-person meeting should be devoted to finding 
> a solution to the vertical integration question, and that important task 
> should not be put aside simply to listen to private justifications for what 
> appears to be a pre-emption of our policy prerogative.   That would simply be 
> to double the damage.  
>  
> Ron Andruff wisely suggests leaving this decision to our co-chairs, so I 
> offer my thoughts as a WG member's opinion only.  
>  
> Antony
>  
>  
>  
> On Jun 23, 2010, at 1:16 AM, Ron Andruff wrote:
> 
> 
> Chuck, I leave that to our co-chairs.
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> RA
>  
> Ronald N. Andruff
> President
>  
> RNA Partners, Inc.
> 220 Fifth Avenue
> New York, New York 10001
> + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11
>  
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 12:51 PM
> To: Ron Andruff; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Private GNSO Council meeting with Board on VI
>  
> Ron,
>  
> If the co-chairs would like me to answer these questions, I would be happy to 
> do so for the entire WG but I think that would be much easier to do in 
> person, possibly at your in-person meeting which I think is being held on 
> Thursday.  The reason I suggest that is because I suspect that my answers to 
> your questions will generate other questions and so on and because there were 
> a lot of factors involved.
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 8:27 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Private GNSO Council meeting with Board on VI
>  
> Thank you for letting us know, Chuck.  Two questions:
>  
> On what basis did you call a meeting with the board on a topic that has been 
> delegated to a WG?
> Why were the co-chairs of the WG not invited?
>  
> I’m not trying to take this WG off on a tangent for but, for many of us, this 
> meeting does appear highly unusual and somewhat discomfiting.
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> RA
>  
> Ronald N. Andruff
> RNA Partners, Inc.
>  
>  
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 7:57 AM
> To: Ron Andruff; Neuman, Jeff; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Private GNSO Council meeting with Board on VI
>  
> Ron,
>  
> I called it.
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Ron Andruff
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 6:19 AM
> To: 'Neuman, Jeff'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Private GNSO Council meeting with Board on VI
>  
> Agreed, Jeff.  It is completely inappropriate for the Council to meet with 
> the Board on a topic that has been given to a Working Group to determine.  I 
> would also be interested in knowing who called this meeting as well.
>  
> RA
>  
> Ronald N. Andruff
> RNA Partners, Inc.
>  
>  
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 4:32 AM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Private GNSO Council meeting with Board on VI
>  
> I understand that yesterday a “private” meeting was called between the GNSO 
> Council and Board members on Vertical Integration.  Can a councilor please 
> (1) explain to us why this meeting was called with the Council as opposed to 
> the VI Group and (2) document for the record what was discussed and/or 
> decided.
>  
> I plan on addressing this separately, but I am not sure that these types of 
> meetings should occur especially when the issue is under the jurisdiction of 
> the Working Group NOT the Council.  This is contrary to the bottom up process.
> 
> Best regards,
>  
> 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@xxxxxxxxxxx  / 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.
>  
>  

- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)