FW: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG

[Gomes, Chuck]

Here's a response from Jeff regarding Tim's comments.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us] 
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 8:41 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Tim Ruiz; Stéphane_Van_Gelder; Rosette, Kristina; Caroline Greer
Cc: GNSO Council
Subject: RE: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG

Thanks Tim (and again, I cannot post to Council list)...so please pass on.  

I agree with almost everything Tim said except for one item.  I believe that before the GNSO Council passes a motion to approve a recommendation, as Tim has said, it needs to have had an opportunity for public comment.  Although there may be a future comment period in the DAG on this, I do not believe that is a cure.  When the GNSO Council passes a motion to a approve a recommendation, it is sending a message to the Community, Staff and Board, that it ALREADY has broad community support, which in this case, it does not (YET).  We should not use the easy way out and have the Council approve knowing that it may go out later for comment as part of the DAG process.

This is a larger process issue.  As Tim stated, normally a working group, work team, etc., puts it out before the council even starts to craft a motion on policy.  We should not deviate from this important practice even if it will go out for comment later.  After all, every policy that is passed by the GNSO to the Board will eventually go out for public comment by the Board before it crafts a resolution.  So by that logic, nothing the council decides relative to policy needs to go out for comment, because one day the Board will put it out for comment.

Thanks again for taking this up.

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: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 8:33 AM
To: Tim Ruiz; Stéphane_Van_Gelder
Cc: Neuman, Jeff; GNSO Council
Subject: RE: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG

That makes sense in my opinion Tim.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-
> council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 8:25 AM
> To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder
> Cc: Jeff Neuman; GNSO Council
> Subject: RE: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG
> 
> 
> This is not about whether Council motions should be put out for public
> comment, or even about setting that precendent. Normal procedures for
> PDPs or WTs is that some opportunity for public comment/input is
> provided along the way - constituency statements, initial reports, etc.
> 
> In this case that was not provided for, and I take Jeff's suggestion
> that the motion go out for public comment as simply a way to resolve
> the
> concern, or what he feels is missing, in this particular case.
> 
> In our consideration of this I think it would help if Staff can let us
> know how this recommendation would likely be handled if we approve the
> motion as is. Will the recommendation make it into DAGv4? If so, and it
> is specifically spelled out as one of the changes in the announcement
> of
> DAGv4, then that might resolve the concern with providing an
> opportunity
> for public comment. One way or the other though, this change certainly
> should not find its way in the final applicant guidebook without an
> opportunity for the community to review and comment on it.
> 
> 
> Tim
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG
> From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>
> Date: Thu, May 20, 2010 3:46 am
> To: GNSO Council <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Cc: Jeff Neuman <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>
> 
> 
> I agree this is something we should discuss. I also have concerns, but
> those are more to do with my own understanding of the way the Council
> should act, and the challenges to that that Jeff's note brings.
> 
> Of particular interest to me is his assertion that Council should put
> out this motion for public comment. I do not recall ever seeing
> Council's ability to act on properly submitted motions (such as this
> one) without first putting said motion out for public comment
> questioned
> in this way. If I understand Jeff's meaning correctly, he is suggesting
> that Council's decision-making process be slowed down to include, at
> every step, the possibility for public comment. While I understand the
> rationale, I think that Council is tasked with leading the GNSO and
> that
> doing what I understand Jeff to be suggesting would render Council
> ineffective in doing so.
> 
> There is plenty of opportunity for community input built into the
> Council procedures as is, I don't think that our motions should be put
> out to public comment before we vote on them. What would that mean to
> our timelines anyway? That we would submit a motion, then wait 30 days
> for public comments, then have staff process them, then read the
> process
> report, then discuss the motion again...?
> 
> I respect Jeff's opinion greatly, and think that he is able to provide
> the Council with input that we should take on board, not least because
> of his heavy involvement in the GNSO restructure effort which has
> undoubtedly given him a great deal of clarity of vision into our
> processes. But I am wary of what I understand Jeff to be suggesting
> here, because I think it will effectively stall Council function.
> 
> I am copying Jeff so that he may correct me if I have understood what
> he
> is suggesting incorrectly.
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> Le 20 mai 2010 à 09:33, <KnobenW at telekom.de> a écrit :
> 
> >
> > I've not yet process concerns. But we should try to solve the
> procedural issue in general.
> >
> >
> > Regards
> > Wolf-Ulrich
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-
> council at gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Rosette, Kristina
> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 19. Mai 2010 22:00
> > An: tim at godaddy.com; council at gnso.icann.org
> > Betreff: Re: [council] Motion from IDNG
> >
> >
> > It is now.
> >
> > I have similar process concerns. I also have substance concerns.
> >
> >
> > ------Original Message------
> > From: Tim Ruiz
> > To: GNSO Council
> > ReplyTo: Tim Ruiz
> > Subject: RE: [council] Motion from IDNG
> > Sent: May 19, 2010 3:52 PM
> >
> >
> > Chuck,
> >
> > Some of the Councilors, including myself, were copied on a letter
> from
> > Jeff Neuman to the Council regarding this motion. Is that going to
> > posted to the Council list? I'd like an opportunity to discuss it and
> > understand others' thoughts on it.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: RE: [council] Motion from IDNG
> > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
> > Date: Wed, May 19, 2010 2:09 pm
> > To: "Edmon Chung" <edmon at registry.asia>, <council at gnso.icann.org>
> >
> >
> > I agree with Avri's response.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-
> >> council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung
> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 12:50 PM
> >> To: council at gnso.icann.org
> >> Subject: RE: [council] Motion from IDNG
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Kristina,
> >> Forwarding a note from Avri who helped write the document:
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Edmon -
> >>
> >> On 19 May 2010, at 10:12, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
> >>
> >>> Is the exception extended to apply only where (a) the same entity
> is
> >> the
> >> applicant for both strings; or (b) there is a unity of source for
> the
> >> strings by virtue of a corporate relationship or legal agreement
> >> between the
> >> applicant and the operator of the prior string?
> >>
> >>
> >> My single person opinion.
> >>
> >> I think that is pretty much up to the determination of the extended
> >> panel.
> >> Obviously the second example shows that it does not need to be the
> same
> >> entity. It would be up to the panel to figure out whether
> >
> > ------Original Message Truncated------
> >
> >
>