AW: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG

Tim Ruiz tim at godaddy.com
Thu May 20 14:50:01 UTC 2010


> But wont the community have an opportunity to
> comment later (with respect to the IDNG issue)?

That's what I would like to find out. If the 
recommendation will make it in DAGv4 that does 
at least provide an opportunity for community to 
review and respond.

> Determining which work of the community for the 
> community is going to be completed is not very 
> much different from directing changes to the DAG 
> or creating policy.
>
> You are controlling what will be done or won't 
> be done either way!
>
> This is a horribly slippery slope but I don't 
> think you can cast stones at one process and say 
> it is "different" from others.

We're not deciding what is going to be completed, 
only in what priority, and even then with at least 
SG input through the Councilors as you noted. 

When specific work commences, broader input will 
be sought on the specific issue before 
recommendations come back to the Council. Why is 
that a slippery slope? This is what we've been 
doing all along.

I'm not arguing that there isn't a line somewhere,
I just don't think it's clear where the line is 
and we should probably consider that going forward.

> Did I use up my cliché quota yet?

Yes, but when we're stuck between a rock and a 
hard place it's okay to try and avoid extra
innings by punting.

Tim
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: AW: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG
From: Adrian Kinderis <adrian at ausregistry.com.au>
Date: Thu, May 20, 2010 9:21 am
To: Tim Ruiz <tim at godaddy.com>, "GNSO Council "
<council at gnso.icann.org>

But wont the community have an opportunity to comment later (with
respect to the IDNG issue)?

Determining which work of the community for the community is going to be
completed is not very much different from directing changes to the DAG
or creating policy.

You are controlling what will be done or won't be done either way!

This is a horribly slippery slope but I don't think you can cast stones
at one process and say it is "different" from others.

Did I use up my cliché quota yet?

Adrian Kinderis

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org]
On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Friday, 21 May 2010 12:16 AM
To: GNSO Council 
Subject: RE: AW: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG


Exactly, where do we draw the line. But given your line of reasoning,
why do we bother getting community input on anything then? Or you
implying that we shouldn't?

The Council prioritizing its work (which comes from the community) is
much different than creating policy, directing changes to the DAG, or
other decisions that affect stakeholders that may or may not be
represented in the SGs of the GNSO.


Tim 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: AW: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG
From: Adrian Kinderis <adrian at ausregistry.com.au>
Date: Thu, May 20, 2010 9:01 am
To: Tim Ruiz <tim at godaddy.com>, "GNSO Council "
<council at gnso.icann.org>

Is the Community not represented, by default, in the makeup of the
Council? Isn't their voice heard that way?

Where do you draw the line?

I will be abstaining on the vote of "work prioritisation" as the staff
list was not put out for public comment. 

Adrian Kinderis


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org]
On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Thursday, 20 May 2010 11:58 PM
To: GNSO Council 
Subject: RE: AW: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG


Council formed a drafting team in this case, but it's the same issue.
Regardless, there is a historical expectation on the part of the
community. We need to consider how that should be applied here, and
going forward to avoid this issue.

Tim 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: AW: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG
From: <KnobenW at telekom.de>
Date: Thu, May 20, 2010 8:25 am
To: <tim at godaddy.com>, <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>
Cc: <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>, <council at gnso.icann.org>


Are we rally talking about PDP issues rather than revising the DAGv4
which I understand is the execution of a former PDP? 



Regards
Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org]
Im Auftrag von Tim Ruiz
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 20. Mai 2010 14:25
An: Stéphane_Van_Gelder
Cc: Jeff Neuman; GNSO Council
Betreff: 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------
> 
>





More information about the council mailing list