Fwd: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG

Thu May 20 14:32:21 UTC 2010

Message sent on behalf of Jeff Neuman.

Stéphane

Début du message réexpédié :

> De : "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>
> Date : 20 mai 2010 13:25:43 HAEC
> À : "'stephane.vangelder at indom.com'" <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>, "'council at gnso.icann.org'" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Objet : Rép : AW: [council] Motion from IDNG
> 
> Thanks Stephane.  To clarify.  Gnso council motions should not be put out for public comment.
> 
> However, most of the the time, the substance of what is behind a motion regarding policy has been put out for public comment PRIOR to the council ever crafting a motion in the first place.  Normally that is done by a working group, work team, etc.
> 
> Here, the substance was never put out for comment and therefore because the substance of the motion was never put out to the public for input, it needs to be put out now.
> 
> My point is that we should have never gotten to this point where the council is looking at a motion based on on a policy that was never commented on by the public.
> 
> I hope that helps.
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> Vice President, Law & Policy
> NeuStar, Inc.
> Jeff.Neuman at neustar.biz
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>
> To: GNSO Council <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Cc: Neuman, Jeff
> Sent: Thu May 20 04:46:05 2010
> Subject: Re: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG
> 
> 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------
>> 
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20100520/13c2017a/attachment.html>