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

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I was there. None of the specific proposals or aspects of them were
discussed or argued. What I came away with was that if Council gets a
final report with no consensus, the Board isn't really interested in
Council trying to resolve it at Council level (makes perfect sense and I
doubt Council would attempt such a thing anyway), nor do they want
Council to send them opposing recommendations with the intent that the
Board sort it out.

In any event, I saw this meeting as an opportunity for Council and Board
to communicate about processes around an important policy issue. And it
was more or less an extension of the discussion many of us were having
the night before at the Council/Board/Staff dinner.

There were no negotiations or lobbying by anyone with any particular
agenda. That's left to all us to engage in on our own.

Tim


> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Private GNSO Council meeting with Board on
> VI
> From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, June 23, 2010 1:31 am
> To: Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,        Ron Andruff
> <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "'Gomes, Chuck'" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,       
> "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
>    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:
> 
>     1. On what basis did you call a meeting with the board on a topic
>        that has been delegated to a WG?
>     2. 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.