Dear all,

I think this merits wider audience than just the Policy Committee list
where Ed posted it. The DomainIncite article is worth reading, too:

http://domainincite.com/19450-odd-couple-coalition-wants-urs-deleted-from-legacy-gtld-contracts

We can indeed be more effective by cooperating with other groups when
interests coincide, however bitterly we may disagree with them at
other times. Good work, Ed!

Tapani

----- Forwarded message from Edward Morris <[log in to unmask]> -----

Hi everybody,


  I wanted to let everyone know that the URS related  Reconsideration
Request was submitted last night. It can be found here:


https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-15-19-icann-business-c
onstituency-ncsg-2015-10-13-en

 I want to thank everyone for your help and support on this, both in Buenos
Aires with the public comments and on this Reconsideration Request itself.
I recognise the submitted Reconsideration Request is rather long, the
inevitable result of having Phil and I do something like this, and  is a
result of a lot of compromise and a lot of back and forth. Amr was
certainly correct in pointing out several of the defects of the Request: it
would be a much different document if we had done one independently.
Nevertheless, I do believe we are going to force the Board to respond to
these core concerns:

 1. That staff usurped the GNSO policy development process n the .CAT,
.TRAVEL and.PRO renewals,

 2. That the Board let them do so without even admonishing staff for using
the new RPM's as the starting point for contractual negotiations on
renewals of legacy gTLD's, and

 3. That the Board was derelict in not investigating whether the renewal
contracts were truly the result of even handed bilateral negotiations.

 I should note that some of what appears to be diversions within the
Request actually represent some positioning we had to do so that: 1. both
groups had standing to file the Request and 2. the Request met other
qualifications for consideration. The Board will only reconsider it's
decision under certain specified conditions. You can't simply ask them to
think again about what they did, despite the mechanisms name. We shouldn't
have any problem getting this accepted.

 I want to thank both Phil Corwin and Steve DelBianco of the BC for their
professionalism and fine work in this matter. There were things  in this
Request their members were not comfortable with or happy about. We tried to
work together to address some of those concerns but in some cases we
weren't able to find an answer, and to their credit Phil and Steve did not
lose sight of why we were doing this together. A RR filed by the commercial
and noncommercial communities together is far more powerful than separate
RR's done by each group.  When we can work with other groups without
sacrificing our core principles and beliefs I do believe it's in our
interest and  in the interest of our members to do so. Indeed, the industry
press seems a bit bemused by our joint filing:

http://domainincite.com/19450-odd-couple-coalition-wants-urs-deleted-from-legacy-gtld-contracts

 Safe travels to all heading for Dublin.

 Best,

 Ed

----- End forwarded message -----