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

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you Tim.  That is encouraging.

On Jun 23, 2010, at 9:04 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> 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.