RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] RE: Action Items from Last Week's PDP Call

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

Ok….we will need to sync those discussions because we have had extensive 
discussions on the drafting of a charter.

 

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.

 

 

From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 11:30 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff; Margie Milam; Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Ken Bour
Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] RE: Action Items from Last Week's PDP Call

 

Jeff, et. al.

Our group's work will dovetail nicely with these issues.  We are drafting 
guidelines for groups that are charged with preparing a charter for a WG and 
guidelines for running a WG.  The guidelines for running a WG assume that the 
WG has been given a charter by the sponsoring organization.

J. Scott

 

j. scott evans | senior legal director, global brand & trademark | Yahoo! Inc. 
| evansj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx | 408.349.1385

 

 

________________________________

From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>; "Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx" 
<gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 7:58:08 PM
Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] RE: Action Items from Last Week's PDP Call

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.

 

 

From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Margie Milam
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 7:23 PM
To: Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
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
To: Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Action Items from Last Week's PDP Call

 

Dear All,

 

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.

 

Best,

 

Margie Milam

Senior Policy Counselor

ICANN

 

Wiki Link

 

https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?pdp_team 
<https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?pdp_team> 

 

 

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?

 

                                                               i.      To be 
discussed in more detail on the next call

                                                             ii.      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?

                                                               i.      One 
person should be tasked with overseeing the charter process, not necessary to 
be a GNSO council member

                                                             ii.      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