RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Agenda for Tomorrow's PDP Call

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike,

I am sorry you missed the call or at least the part of the call in which I 
explained exactly what I did and the rationale for what I did.  

As anyone on the call can explain to you, and I recommend you listen to the 
Mp3, what I was doing was showing in written form exactly what ICANN staff (not 
me) was recommending.  The premise of my document (which I stressed had no 
official status) was trying to conceptualize exactly what ICANN staff was 
recommending.  I in no way endorsed or spoke against ICANN's staff proposal.  I 
was merely trying to get some discussion going in our group and making the 
group aware of discussions that were taking place in other fora.

I have never expressed my personal opinion on the matters you have discussed 
below to anyone other than in the RyC of which I am a member. That said, it may 
surprise you that my personal view may actually be quite different than the 
illustrative document I sent out.  But it is NOT my role in this group to 
express my personal opinion.

I am truly sorry that you have taken my document completely out of context and 
I hope you now understand what I was trying to do.  I do hope you have the time 
to listen to the mp3 recording.


Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.: 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: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 11:23 AM
To: Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Agenda for Tomorrow's PDP Call


The BC is highly unlikely to support discussion or consensus as to any
'interim' solution that only puts off critical issues for later debate, and
meanwhile adopts half a solution supported by half the community.  We should
discuss and recommend our consensus view (if any) of what a PDP should look
like once a complete transition is done, taking into account the many
uncertainties still to be resolved with respect to GNSO restructure.  So we
should avoid discussion of specific voting thresholds, in particular, until
those restructure issues are resolved.

We must continue under the PDP rules that we have, which are generally
understood by all in the community, and which have worked for years --
unless and until we agree on a new set of complete rules to take effect on a
certain date under certain conditions.  It is foolish to try to create an
'interim' set of rules because there is so much uncertainty as to when those
rules would take effect, how long they would be in effect, and indeed what
they should be and why we should have any interim solution.  

It is my strong belief that we are not going to reach consensus on an
interim set of rules, and it would be an extreme waste of our collective
time to try to do so.

It is also troubling that this draft is put forward by the Chair of this WG,
who is obliged to remain neutral.  It is very difficult to remain neutral as
to one's own position, and so this proposal can only lessen confidence in
the neutrality of the Chair.

I also echo others' concerns about the Bylaws proposal coming from Staff.
Certainly Staff is trying to be helpful, but I am not aware of any authority
of Staff to make policy proposals of any kind on their own initiative,
especially on such important topics like Bylaw revisions and/or the PDP.
There should have been community discussion of the proposed amendments
before Staff put out any proposal.

Mike Rodenbaugh



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 10:21 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff; Margie Milam; Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Glen de Saint Géry
Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Agenda for Tomorrow's PDP Call

All,

 

I am resending this around in a non-docx format for people.  

 

 

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.: 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-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 9:29 PM
To: Margie Milam; Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Glen de Saint Géry
Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Agenda for Tomorrow's PDP Call

 

All,


I did a VERY preliminary look at the existing Bylaws in order to aid
tomorrow's discussion and updated it to show you what the PDP process in the
bylaws could in theory look like if Board adopts the staff's recommendation
for the draft Bylaws and we have not concluded our PDP Team work.

 

This again is a strawman for demonstration purposes.  The wording may be a
little awkward, but I tried to do my own "what would the bylaws look like if
all we adopted come June was the new Thresholds without anything else."  I
can explain more on the call, but essentially I just inserted the new
thresholds into the existing Appendix A.  

 

It may not help our discussion, but lets see.

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.: 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-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Margie Milam
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 5:54 PM
To: Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Glen de Saint Géry
Subject: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Agenda for Tomorrow's PDP Call

 

Dear All,

 

The proposed agenda for tomorrow's call is:

 

1.       Transition Discussion/Bylaws

2.       Revised Work Plan  

3.       Division of Responsibilities

4.       Common Terminology

5.       Staff Background Document 

 

With respect to the draft Bylaws (attached), please review  Article XX
(Transition) as it relates to PDP voting thresholds (Section 11).   I have
also  forwarded below my email to the GNSO Council  to provide you with
additional background information on the draft Bylaws.  

 

 The attached Staff PDP document is background information for your review
that does not need to be reviewed for our call this week, but may be helpful
as we commence our analysis on the new PDP Model.   

 

Regards,

Margie Milam

Senior Policy Counselor

ICANN

 

From: Margie Milam
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 5:35 PM
To: 'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Draft Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws Relating to GNSO Restructure

 

Dear All,

 

As discussed in today's GNSO call,   ICANN Staff has prepared Draft Bylaws
Revisions (attached) that contain Staff recommendations for changes relating
to the GNSO restructure.   They are intended to serve as a starting point
for the GNSO Council's discussions.    

 

General Observations

 

·         These Bylaws were drafted to be consistent with Board
recommendations as to structure and principles.

·         Staff also attempted to build in flexibility to accommodate
changes in the future without requiring Bylaws amendments.  For example,
Staff recommends that some issues be moved from the Bylaws to GNSO Council
Operating Rules and Procedures that would be approved by the Board.

·         Since the Board approved improvements did not provide specific
details with respect to all topics, ICANN staff developed recommendations to
address these gaps, which are contained in footnotes throughout the
document.

·         The Draft Bylaws Revisions are subject to review by the ICANN
Office of the General Counsel for legal form as well as consistency. 

·         A few additional decisions will be needed to finalize these
Bylaws, for example,  Board approval of the unresolved open issue concerning
Board seats 13 and 14, and further Council work on certain of the transition
procedures (e.g. staggered terms, elections). 

 

Format of Revisions

 

·         To facilitate reviewing these changes, the Draft Bylaws is
organized as a side-by-side comparison of the current language and the
proposed language.

·         The yellow highlighted text refers to new or substantially revised
language compared to the current Bylaws.

·         The footnotes include rationale statements where Staff thought  an
explanation might be helpful.   

 

Next Steps and Timing

 

·         The GNSO Council will need to decide how it would like to review
the Draft Bylaws to develop its recommendations.

·         ICANN Staff will be working with the GNSO Operations Work Team in
developing the GNSO Operating Rules and Procedures to incorporate those
improvements that were omitted from the Bylaws in order to provide
flexibility.

·         In order to seat the new Council by June,  the Board would need to
approve of the revisions by no later than its May 21st meeting.

·         A public comment period would need to take place before the May
21st meeting.

·         The Council would need to complete its review/analysis by the next
GNSO council meeting on April 16th  in order to accommodate the public
comment period.

·         Due to this short time period, the GNSO Council is currently
evaluating the most effective way to proceed.  

 

Finally, ICANN Staff is available to provide background and additional
information on the Draft Bylaws Revisions if it would be helpful for your
review.

 

Regards,

 

Margie Milam

Senior Policy Counselor

ICANN