[council] Proposed amendment to OSC & PPSC motion

Neuman, Jeff Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us
Wed Dec 1 18:47:06 UTC 2010


If I can just respond to some of these points:
I do not view it to be helpful to the policy process for the Council to pass a resolution essentially telling policy groups to “hurry up and finish your work because we are tired of this being on our agenda”.  I know those are not the words being used, but that is the message being sent.  Do Council members believe that simply because it passes a resolution, those that have already been participating will all of a sudden move that much more quickly?  The real issue, at least with respect to the PPSC, is the clear lack of participation by a number of constituencies/stakeholder groups in the process, whether at the Work Team or Steering Committee level. How about a resolution whereby each Councilor agrees to ensure that its representatives actually show up for calls, respond to e-mails and actually participate?  As someone who has personally approached the Council on several occasions begging you all to you back to your groups to get participation to little or no avail, this motion is counter-productive at best.   I feel the same frustration everyone on the council felt when the ICANN Board told the Council it needed to move faster to solve the issues with respect to vertical integration.  It was poor management skills of the ICANN Board to order that of the council, and it would be the same poor management skills of the Council to do the same to the Steering Committees and Work Teams.
Lets not worry about resolutions at this point and coming up with top-down solutions that are not well thought out.  Lets ask what these groups need to complete their jobs and give the groups what they need to do their work.  As for the PDP Work Team, here is what I believe we need:
1.  Participation by Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies:   The PDP Work Team has several people that participate, but there are entire constituencies that have been completely absent for months (or even years at this point).  How about a commitment from Councilors to remove those from their constituencies/stakeholder groups that are on the Work Team that do not participate and replacing them with those that have the time and resources to do so.
2.  Encouraging discussions within their own constituencies and stakeholder groups of the substance of the proposed recommendations and ensuring reps to the Work Teams have the feedback they need to contribute; and
3.  Appointing a Council Liaison that is able to attend meetings and participate.
If we can accomplish 1-3 above, then we will be able to meet our deadlines and hopefully not have to worry about whether the PPSC or other standing committee adds another level of bureaucracy or not.

Those are just my personal thoughts.





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-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 12:56 PM
To: council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: RE: [council] Proposed amendment to OSC & PPSC motion

Thanks for the comments, Chuck and Tim. Hopefully the following clarification will help matters:

(1) I actually borrowed (er, copied :) the first resolve clause from Chuck's original motion, as I agree it's important to wrap up the improvements process and we'll need clear and specific indicators of what remains due and when in order to do so. If it would have been more appropriate to propose my amendment as an amendment to Chuck's rather than Wendy's motion, I can perhaps do that (if it's within the rules to do so).

(2) The intent was NOT to add an extra layer; rather, it was to reduce duplication and delay by having the Council take over from where the OSC and PPSC are now. My reasons for this include (i) the need to wrap things up as mentioned already; (ii) the risk of further delay if we keep referring things back to the OSC/PPSC to then pass on to individual work teams, for funneling back to us; (iii) the resulting inefficiencies once the Council discovers certain procedures or recommendations to be unworkable, thus resulting in yet another go-around; and (iv) the need for the Council to step in and exercise a true managerial function, which includes substantive review.

(3) On that last point, there had been consensus around creating a Standing Committee that would NOT be the equivalent of the OSC and/or PPSC. The Standing Committee would (i) assist the Council in its review work; (ii) review at the Council's request existing processes (as it would not be appropriate for those who drafted the procedures to be reviewing themselves!); and (iii) if necessary and/or requested by the Council, convene new drafting/work teams should subsequent drafting or other work be necessary in the fullness of time.

As to the question of whether the Council will be less busy and/or pay more critical attention now than perhaps some of us did before, I hope so. The incidents we have already raised must mean we need to, and I believe my amendments will clarify for the community that this is indeed what we are prepared to do.

Thanks,
Mary

Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu<mailto:mary.wong at law.unh.edu>
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>>>
From:

"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>

To:

"Mary Wong" <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu>, <council at gnso.icann.org>

Date:

12/1/2010 10:04 AM

Subject:

RE: [council] Proposed amendment to OSC & PPSC motion

I want to point out that the motion I made to extend the PPSC and OSC charters was very similar to the first resolve of Mary’s proposed amendment with regard to timing.  It also only extended the charters to the San Francisco meeting and that was done consciously by me because I also believe that we need to wrap up the GNSO improvements work quickly.  And I personally support directing “each steering committee and applicable work team chair to identify for the Council any remaining targets and benchmarks for their respective work by no later than 19 January 2011”.
Recognizing that the RySG has not discussed this yet, I have concerns about the second resolve because I like Tim believe it will result in duplication of effort and inefficiency.  We have three layers now; we would have four then.  Finally, asking the Council to be more directly involved seems to me something that should already be the case.  The Council approved the procedures that we are now so concerned about.  The excuse is that we were all too busy.  Is that going to change in the next few months?
Chuck
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 9:44 PM
To: council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: [council] Proposed amendment to OSC & PPSC motion

Hello everyone,

In view of the additional information supplied by Julie, Liz and Philip, but considering also Wendy's and others' points relating to the workability of the current GNSO processes, I hereby propose the following amendment to Wendy's motion. Fundamentally, I believe it's time, and necessary, for the Council now to assume direct responsibility for reviewing the deliverables from the PPSC and OSC as well as the respective work teams. In this, the Council should be assisted by the Standing Committee that was supposed to have been formed some time ago.

Of course, this would not preclude either the Council or the Standing Committee from consulting the teams and committees that drafted and reviewed the original language and processes; it's just that - with the amount of projects we are facing and the concerns already expressed over both the Council's role and the workability of the new GNSO rules and procedures, the seemingly-endless rounds of discussion, interpretation, delegation, referral and redrafting has to stop somewhere and that should be the Council.

So, here goes - keeping the original WHEREAS clauses, I suggest the following RESOLVED clauses to the OSC and PPSC charter motion. I hope Wendy will consider it friendly.

"RESOLVED, the Council acknowledges and thanks the OSC, the PPSC and the five community work teams for their hard work; and directs each steering committee and applicable work team chair to identify for the Council any remaining targets and benchmarks for their respective work by no later than 19 January 2011, with a view toward final delivery to the Council of any remaining work items so identified by no later than the San Francisco meeting.
FURTHER RESOLVED, a Standing Committee to monitor implementation of GNSO Improvements shall be established no later than 19 January 2011. The Standing Committee will work with the Council to review and, if necessary, convene relevant work teams to refine and streamline, the effectiveness of GNSO Improvements on an ongoing basis."

Thanks and cheers
Mary




Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu<mailto:mary.wong at law.unh.edu>
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584




As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname at law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu<http://law.unh.edu>





As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname at law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu<http://law.unh.edu>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20101201/6055d13d/attachment.html>


More information about the council mailing list