<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-ppsc] RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] PDP practice of confidential reports on public policy mattes is inappropriate
- To: "Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc] RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] PDP practice of confidential reports on public policy mattes is inappropriate
- From: "Diaz, Paul" <pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 10:36:32 -0500
I support Alan's comments below.
Paul Diaz
Policy & Ethics Manager
Network Solutions, LLC
________________________________________
From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 11:12 PM
To: Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc] RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] PDP practice of confidential
reports on public policy mattes is inappropriate
I strongly support Robin's comment.
If the main issue is (as has been claimed) that the full PDP report is too
onerous, then we need to be told what the targets are for an acceptable length
Board report so that the WG can create it. In the end, the current
"confidential" report is likely to be written by the same policy staff who
assisted the WG in its deliberations and in writing its report.
If staff must also provide some sort of confidential advice to the Board in its
deliberations, that is fine, but it should be an addition to the report
(condenced or otherwise) send by the GNSO, not a substitute for it.
Alan
At 07/12/2009 09:21 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
Thanks Robin for this comment. Robin brings up a point that was discussed on
the last call. I know the registry constituency has expressed a similar
sentiment. It would be great for others to weigh in on this as well.
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 Robin Gross
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 6:06 PM
To: Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: PPSC
Subject: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] PDP practice of confidential reports on public policy
mattes is inappropriate
I do not believe there should be a standard practice for the ICANN staff to
send the ICANN Board a confidential report to accompany the public report.
which the GNSO approves of.
I'm especially concerned since we hear the board often only reads the staff
prepared report, which means the community really has no idea what the staff is
saying to the board, and thus upon what information decisions are being made.
Certainly there can be exceptional circumstances when there is a legitimate
reason to provide confidential advice to the board from the staff - but that
should be on a case by case basis, where legitimate need is demonstrated.
However a standard PDP practice of a private report on policy matters goes
against all of ICANN's promises about being transparent in its policy
process. It is time to put an end to the practice of confidential reports on
matters of public deliberation.
Thanks,
Robin
IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|