RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] RE: Action Items from Last Week's PDP Call
- To: "Margie Milam" <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>, "Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] RE: Action Items from Last Week's PDP Call
- From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:58:08 -0400
I just wanted to add some of my additional notes from the last meeting
as well on some of the items. These are not necessarily my personal
view, but rather my notes from the meeting. In addition, I am cc'ing J
Scott Evans to read the notes below to make sure our work is not
overlapping with the work of the Working Group Work Team.
- The group believes that the GNSO Council must approve of a
charter for a working group prior to the working group being
constituted. The working group will be allowed to request
recommendations to modify the charter subject to GNSO Council approval.
As noted below by Margie, review of the charter should be one of the
first tasks of the working group (but this issue is one for the Working
Group Work Team to Consider).
- With respect to the voting thresholds on the approval of a
Working Group charter, the group on the call seemed to support the
notion that the Council needed to approve the Charter with the same
threshold as to initiate the PDP.
o In other words, according to the already approved thresholds, to
initiate an "in scope" PDP, it requires more than 33% vote of both
houses or more than 66% vote of one house. Therefore, to approve the
charter, it would also require the same 33% vote of both houses or more
than 66% vote of one house. Alternatively, to initiate a PDP "not
within scope" it requires more than 75% of one house and a majority of
the other house and therefore it would require the same threshold to
approve a charter for a working group.
o The alternative was discussed (namely, requiring a majority of both
houses to approve the charter), but it was thought by the group that
having a higher threshold to approve the charter could result in the
approval of creating a working group, but failure to ever approve a
charter (which would hold up the process). For example, if there was a
PDP in scope that the council voted to initiate because it more than 66%
of one house, the other house could effectively hold up all of the work
of the working group by never voting in favor of a charter. [Too much
potential for gaming].
o However, the group also discussed having the default rule of
Majority vote of both houses to approve and changes or modifications to
the charter if a request has been made by the working group. However,
we are soliciting feedback on this.
- With respect to the drafting of the actual charter, the group
on the call believed the current informal process of having the Council
solicit volunteers to form a drafting committee was working. The
drafting team need not be comprised of Council members (although they
would be free to volunteer as well). They would like that the Council
continue to appoint a liaison from the Council to oversee the process.
Note - that oversight is not the same thing as "chairing" the drafting
team. They may do both, but that is not required.
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.
[mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Margie Milam
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 7:23 PM
Subject: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] RE: Action Items from Last Week's PDP Call
Resending, with the summary of charter procedures included below:
From: Margie Milam
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 4:15 PM
Subject: Action Items from Last Week's PDP Call
The following is a brief summary of action items discussed on our PDP-WT
call last week on Thursday July 23.
1. Due to the lack of attendance on the call, we have scheduled
the next call for this Thursday, July 30 at 14:00 UTC.
2. At the next call, please be prepared to analyze the Phase II
(Proposal Review and Voting Thresholds) questions described in the
document previously circulated by Marika to this list. Marika will
update this document to include information related to current
practices, and will post it on the WIKI.
3. Please also provide your thoughts on the items discussed on our
call related to the Charter procedures (summarized below).
4. We also plan to evaluate the new GNSO voting thresholds as they
pertain to the PDP processes.
We would like to make a plea for more work team members to participate
on the PDP calls. It is difficult to evaluate whether a consensus has
been reached on some of these important topics when attendance is low.
Senior Policy Counselor
Summary of Charter Related Issues and Questions:
1. Who serves on charter committees?
2. What is the expected timeline for developing a charter?
a. Currently, it takes about 6 weeks to develop and approve a
charter, spanning approximately 2 GNSO meetings
3. Who is responsible for the initial draft of the charter?
a. Consensus is that ICANN Staff should not draft the charter, but
can participate in the process to recommend changes
b. Template to be developed for this purpose, with predetermined
information to be solicited
4. How is the Charter to be approved by the Council-
a. Consensus is to follow current practice of having the GNSO
approve the charter
b. What vote is required to approve the charter: majority of both
houses or the same threshold required to initiate a PDP?
To be discussed in more detail on the next call
Need to address how to determine if something is out of GNSO Scope vs.
in-scope because the voting required varies
5. How can the charter be changed after approval?
a. Who is tasked with renegotiating the charter?
One person should be tasked with overseeing the charter process, not
necessary to be a GNSO council member
Consensus is to have the GNSO council liaison be the person to
communicate changes to the GNSO
b. Consensus is that the working group should begin its work by
evaluating the charter and seeking clarification or revisions