RE: Astoundingly off-topic [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the Council

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Again agree with Tim.  There was no staff bashing in any one of our comments.  
In fact if anything my comments were that ICANN staff was doing what it should 
be doing by not including certain things in motions that it does not want to 
see reflected for historical record.  Its that same diligence we should be 
doing as well.

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.



-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 11:27 AM
To: mike@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: roberto@xxxxxxxxx; owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx; 
Neuman, Jeff
Subject: RE: Astoundingly off-topic [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the 
Council

Mike, not sure what you are talking about. I have read and reread both
my and Jeff's comments and don't see anything close to staff-bashing.



Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Astoundingly off-topic [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for
> the Council
> From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, August 19, 2010 9:13 am
> To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "tim@xxxxxxxxxxx" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Roberto Gaetano
> <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>,        "owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx"
> <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>,        "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx"
> <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>    just one note.  before beating
>    up the staff, please check to
>    see if a certain Junior
>    Co-Chair asked the staff to
>    steer away from that issue (as
>    was the case here).  i do
>    heartily wish we could get out
>    of the habit of staff-bashing.
>    mikey
>    On Aug 19, 2010, at 7:15 AM,
>    Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>    From my own personal
>    standpoint, I agree with Tim.
>    It frankly surprises me how we
>    (the ICANN Community) are
>    consistently making up the
>    rules as we go and that is not
>    just a commentary on this
>    group or the Council, but
>    starts at the top.   I think
>    Tim and I are saying the same
>    thing, which is that we are
>    NOT saying the board cant read
>    it or that it shouldnt read
>    it.  In fact, many of them may
>    have already seen it and I am
>    sure ICANN staff will send it
>    to them on their mailing list
>    as well to read for their
>    retreat.   I am sure the ICANN
>    staff would also include it in
>    the Boards briefing papers
>    regardless of whether or not
>    the GNSO passed a motion.  It
>    should also not go unnoticed
>    that ICANN staff is unwilling
>    into put into the motion that
>    the ICANN Board requested this
>    input for their retreat.  It
>    is clear to most in the VI
>    Group that this information
>    was requested (although NOT in
>    a board motion).  That was
>    consistently the message from
>    the Chairs of this group and I
>    know from personal
>    conversations with some Board
>    members that this is the case
>    as well.
>    The fact that ICANN staff does
>    not want to see this in a GNSO
>    Council should be a signal to
>    those on the Council and the
>    Community how seriously the
>    Staff/Board takes the precise
>    wording of motions and perhaps
>    we (as a community and the
>    Council) should do the same.
>    The ONLY thing we are saying
>    is that it is NOT the role of
>    the GNSO Council to take any
>    sort of a formal action with
>    an incomplete PDP.  Nothing is
>    preventing the GNSO from
>    presenting a status report on
>    the activities of any or all
>    of its work groups.  Just like
>    the GNSO Council does not pass
>    a resolution every time the
>    GNSO Chair gives a status
>    report at a face to face ICANN
>    meeting, the GNSO Council
>    should not have to pass a
>    formal resolution to give this
>    status report.
>
>    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@ican
>    n.org [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-fe
>    b10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
>    Of tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
>    Sent: Thursday, August 19,
>    2010 7:31 AM
>    To: Roberto
>    Gaetano; owner-gnso-vi-feb10@i
>    cann.org; Gnso-vi-feb10@icann.
>    org
>    Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10]
>    Revised motion for the Council
>    The point is the interim
>    report is not forwarded to the
>    board. You can make fun of me
>    if you like, but the PDP
>    serves an important purpose
>    and the process should be
>    followed.
>    That doesn't mean they cannot
>    read the interim report and
>    they can certainly discuss it
>    during their retreat.
>    Tim
>    Sent from my Verizon Wireless
>    BlackBerry
>    ______________________________
>    From: "Roberto Gaetano"
>    <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
>    Sender: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@ic
>    ann.org
>    Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010
>    07:22:40 +0200
>    To: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
>    Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10]
>    Revised motion for the Council
>    To include little footnotes is
>    not explicitely part of the
>    charter of this WG and not
>    provided for in the PDP J
>    R.
>    ______________________________
>    From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@ican
>    n.org [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-fe
>    b10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
>    Of Michael D. Palage
>    Sent: Thursday, 19 August 2010
>    00:18
>    To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>    Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10]
>    Revised motion for the Council
>    Hello All,
>
>    Perhaps what is ever
>    communication is sent to the
>    Board could include a little
>    footnote that there was even a
>    lack of consensus within the
>    VI on how to forward the
>    report to the Board J
>
>    Best regards,
>
>    Michael
>
>    From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@ican
>    n.org [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-fe
>    b10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
>    Of Gomes, Chuck
>    Sent: Wednesday, August 18,
>    2010 6:07 PM
>    To: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx; St??phane
>    Van Gelder
>    Cc: Neuman,Jeff; avri@xxxxxxx;
>     Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>    Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10]
>    Revised motion for the Council
>
>    So we shouldnt do anything
>    that is not specifically
>    provided for?  That would
>    require the PDP process to
>    include every conceivable
>    action or require the Council
>    to act on a motion if it is
>    not specifically provided for.
>
>    Chuck
>
>    From: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
>    tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
>    Sent: Wednesday, August 18,
>    2010 4:56 PM
>    To: Gomes, Chuck; St??phane Van
>    Gelder
>    Cc: Neuman,Jeff; avri@xxxxxxx;
>     Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>    Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10]
>    Revised motion for the Council
>    Actually it's the other way
>    around. Show me in the PDP
>    process where taking action
>    like this on an interim report
>    is provided for. It isn't, and
>    I think for good reason.
>    Tim
>    Sent from my Verizon Wireless
>    BlackBerry
>    ______________________________
>    From: "Gomes, Chuck"
>    <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>    Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010
>    15:21:50 -0400
>    To: <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>;
>    St????phane Van
>    Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indo
>    m.com>
>    Cc: Neuman,Jeff<Jeff.Neuman@ne
>    ustar.us>; <avri@xxxxxxx>;
>    <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
>    Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10]
>    Revised motion for the Council
>    I have looked at it very
>    closely Tim, many times.
>    Please point me to anything in
>    the Bylaws that supports your
>    opinion.
>    Chuck
>    From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@ican
>    n.org [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-fe
>    b10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
>    Of tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
>    Sent: Wednesday, August 18,
>    2010 1:36 PM
>    To: St??phane Van Gelder
>    Cc: Neuman,Jeff; 'avri@xxxxxxx
>    '; 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
>    Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10]
>    Revised motion for the Council
>    In a word, no. Please review
>    the PDP process in the bylaws.
>    Tim
>    Sent from my Verizon Wireless
>    BlackBerry
>    ______________________________
>    From: St??phane Van Gelder
>    <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
>    Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010
>    19:18:08 +0200
>    To: <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>    Cc: Neuman,Jeff<Jeff.Neuman@ne
>    ustar.us>; 'avri@xxxxxxx'<avri
>    @acm.org>; 'Gnso-vi-feb10@ican
>    n.org'<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>    >
>    Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10]
>    Revised motion for the Council
>    I understand that Tim. And as
>    the entity that commissioned
>    the VI WG, isn't the Council
>    able to pass on information to
>    the Board that has been
>    officially sent to it by the
>    WG?
>    St??phane
>    Le 18 ao??t 2010 ??
>    18:34, tim@xxxxxxxxxxx a ??crit
>    :
>
>    Stephane, that simply is not
>    true. The VI is a formal PDP
>    WG. There is a process to
>    follow and Council is
>    responsible for manging that
>    process, not taking liberties
>    with it.
>    Tim
>    Sent from my Verizon Wireless
>    BlackBerry
>    ______________________________
>    From: St??phane Van Gelder
>    <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
>    Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010
>    18:14:49 +0200
>    To: Tim Ruiz<tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>    Cc: Neuman,Jeff<Jeff.Neuman@ne
>    ustar.us>; 'avri@xxxxxxx'<avri
>    @acm.org>; 'Gnso-vi-feb10@ican
>    n.org'<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>    >
>    Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10]
>    Revised motion for the Council
>    I agree with Avri that it is
>    the Council's prerogative to
>    send information to the Board
>    when it deems it necessary.
>    I agree with Jeff that the
>    wording of the motion should
>    make it clear that this is an
>    interim report being sent for
>    information purposes while the
>    WG continues its work.
>    As such, the currently
>    redrafted motion looks fine to
>    me.
>    St??phane
>    Le 17 ao??t 2010 ?? 19:32, Tim
>    Ruiz a ??crit :
>
>    I agree with Jeff. And even if
>    the Board requested that we do
>    this, I would first want to
>    clearly understand why it did
>    so. It is not needed for the
>    Board to review the interim
>    report, so if they requested
>    this then they have some other
>    reason in mind.
>    Tim
>
>    -------- Original Message
>    --------
>    Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10]
>    Revised motion for the Council
>    From: "Neuman, Jeff"
>    <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
>    Date: Mon, August 16, 2010
>    7:24 pm
>    To: "'avri@xxxxxxx'"
>    <avri@xxxxxxx>,
>    "'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'"
>    <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
>    Avri - I don't understand your
>    arguments.
>    But, I do not believe that the
>    Council should get in the
>    habit of formally submitting
>    interim reports to the Board.
>    That is a formal action under
>    the pdp process in the bylaws
>    (the act of forwarding
>    something to the board).
>    All I am asking as the
>    insertion of the concept of
>    this being sent in response to
>    a board request and that this
>    is not a finished product.
>    I really don't understand why
>    you believe that is a
>    controversial request.
>    Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
>    Vice President, Law & Policy
>    NeuStar, Inc.
>    Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx
>    ----- Original Message -----
>    From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@ican
>    n.org <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@ica
>    nn.org>
>    To: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <G
>    nso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
>    Sent: Mon Aug 16 19:53:03 2010
>    Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10]
>    Revised motion for the Council
>    Hi,
>    But aren't you trying to
>    establish a precedent that the
>    GNSO Council may not send
>    status updates to the Board
>    when it thinks it should? I
>    think that is a bad precedent.
>    Sending updates seems to me to
>    fall well within the
>    prerogatives of a manager of
>    the process. they have the
>    right, in fact responsibility,
>    to communicate whatever they
>    feel needs to be communicated
>    as long as they don't mislead
>    anyone about the status of a
>    group or its efforts.
>    I recommend leaving the motion
>    as is.
>    a.
>    They really appreciate the
>    efforts of every member of the
>    group? hmmm.
>    On 16 Aug 2010, at 19:23,
>    Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>    > Thanks Mikey. This is a lot
>    better than the original. One
>    thing I would like to see here
>    for purpose of posterity and
>    so this does not establish bad
>    precedent is a WHEREAS clause
>    the recognizes that this is
>    being forwarded to the Board
>    in response to a request from
>    the Board to do so (even if
>    such request was informal).
>    You can add it to an already
>    existing WHEREAS clause, but
>    it should be in there that
>    this is not the GNSO Council
>    doing this on its own, but
>    rather is in response to a
>    Board request.
>    >
>    > I would also like to reword
>    one of the resolutions to
>    include the following concept:
>    >
>    > RESOLVED FURTHER, that the
>    Council hereby agrees to
>    forward the Revised Initial
>    Report to the ICANN Board as a
>    snapshot of the current state
>    of the ongoing deliberations
>    of the VI Working Group with
>    the understanding that the VI
>    Working Group will continue to
>    work through these issues to
>    attempt to produce concrete
>    recommendations in a final
>    report.
>    >
>    > I am not wedded to the
>    words, but rather would hope
>    that the concept is captured.
>    >
>    > 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: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@ican
>    n.org [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-fe
>    b10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
>    Mike O'Connor
>    > Sent: Monday, August 16,
>    2010 7:02 PM
>    > To: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>    > Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10]
>    Revised motion for the Council
>    >
>    > hi all,
>    >
>    > Margie and i have revised
>    the motion based on the
>    conversation during today's
>    call. see if this works for
>    you...
>    >
>    > Motion to Forward the
>    Revised Initial Report on the
>    Vertical Integration PDP to
>    the ICANN Board.
>    > Whereas, on 28 January 2010,
>    the GNSO Council approved a
>    policy development process
>    (PDP) on the topic of vertical
>    integration between registries
>    and registrars;
>    > Whereas the VI Working Group
>    has produced its Revised
>    Initial Report and has
>    presented it to the GNSO
>    Council on 18 August; and,
>    >
>    > Whereas, the GNSO Council
>    recognizes that the Revised
>    Initial Report does not
>    include any recommendations
>    that have achieved a consensus
>    within the VI Working Group,
>    and instead reflects the
>    current state of the work of
>    the VI Working Group;
>    >
>    > Whereas, the GNSO Council
>    has reviewed the Revised
>    Initial Report, and desires to
>    forward the Revised Initial
>    Report to the ICANN Board;
>    > NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
>    >
>    > RESOLVED, that the GNSO
>    Council appreciates the hard
>    work and tremendous effort
>    shown by each member of the VI
>    PDP working group in
>    developing the Revised Initial
>    Report on an expedited basis;
>    >
>    > RESOLVED FURTHER, that the
>    Council hereby agrees to
>    forward the Revised Initial
>    Report to the ICANN Board as a
>    snapshot of the current state
>    of the ongoing deliberations
>    of the VI Working Group;
>    > RESOLVED FURTHER, that this
>    resolution is not an
>    endorsement or approval by the
>    GNSO Council of the contents
>    of the Revised Initial Report
>    at this time;
>    >
>    > RESOLVED FURTHER, that the
>    GNSO Council directs Staff to
>    make the appropriate
>    notifications to the ICANN
>    Secretary and to the
>    community.
>    >
>    > thanks,
>    >
>    > mikey
>    >
>    > - - - - - - - - -
>    > phone 651-647-6109
>    > fax 866-280-2356
>    > web http://www.haven2.com
>    > handle OConnorStP (ID for
>    public places like Twitter,
>    Facebook, Google, etc.)
>    >
>
>    - - - - - - - - -
>    phone  651-647-6109
>    fax   866-280-2356
>    web  http://www.haven2.com
>    handle OConnorStP (ID for
>    public places like Twitter,
>    Facebook, Google, etc.)