Comment on GNSO Resolution (as opposed to draft letter)

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

All,

This comment is being submitted in my personal capacity and not on behalf of my 
employer, Neustar, Inc., or the Registries Stakeholder Group.  In addition, my 
comment is not on the draft letter itself, as those comments, if any, will be 
submitted through the RySG, but rather relates to the resolution passed by the 
GNSO Council requesting that the letter go out for public comment.

More specifically, at the last minute, and without any discussion by the 
community, the GNSO Council included the following language:

"FURTHER RESOLVED, that this motion shall not serve as a precedent requiring 
the GNSO Council to adhere to a public comment period requirement for any 
future GNSO Council letters."

Not only has no explanation been given for this last minute addition, but I 
believe the statement is fundamentally flawed on a number of different levels.  
It is not the GNSO Council's role to decide what does and does not go out for 
public comment when it relates to policy (as this letter clearly does).  That 
role should be specifically reserved for the GNSO community.  The GNSO 
Council's authority, as documented in the Bylaws, is generated from the people 
and communities in which it serves.  This has been said over and over again, 
but the Council is NOT a legislature that has the right to make proclamations, 
policy decisions, etc., without having to go back to the GNSO community. This 
is supposed to be a bottom-up organization where policy is developed through 
individuals, working groups, experts, etc. and then brought to the Council for 
it to manage, not the other way around.  To the extent that any "letters" are 
submitted by the Council to any external party, and those letters relate to 
policy, then yes they do need to go out for community input.  If they merely 
relate to administrative of true coordination matters, then they do not need to 
go out for comment.

As one of the main catalysts for getting this letter out for public comment, I 
thank the Council for doing the right thing and posting this for comment.  It 
is what should happen with ALL letters that relate to policy.  I am not sure 
why the GNSO Council felt it was necessary to include this "further 
resolution", but to the extent that it reflects the presumption that Council 
does not have to go back to the community when it issues letters relating to 
policy, I ask that the resolution be stricken from the record.  I ask that this 
issue be considered by the appropriate GNSO Improvements team and am also 
submitting this separately to the Accountability and Review team for its 
consideration.  I would also ask that this be discussed at the Council meeting 
in Brussels and would be happy to personally address during that meeting.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.


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<mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>  / 
www.neustar.biz<http://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.