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

["J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>]

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
 
 
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