RE: [gnso-ppsc] RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] PDP practice of confidential reports on public policy mattes is inappropriate

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

Thanks Liz for the clarification.  We are in a little bit of a quandary here in 
that you are suggesting that the team may want to provide a recommendation on 
whether there should be confidential reports from the staff to the Board and 
what should be in these confidential reports; however, none of us have ever 
seen any of the reports.  So, we are at a little bit of a loss.  

I have been doing some thinking about this over the weekend and perhaps the way 
to approach this is to send a letter from the Work Team to the ICANN General 
Counsel (and given the note below possibly the Board Governance Committee) 
asking that they attend one of our next calls to discuss our issues with them 
and to possibly request access to some of the past confidential reports - to 
make recommendations on the use of these reports (if any) in the future.

Does anyone have any thoughts on that?

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.



-----Original Message-----
From: Liz Gasster [mailto:liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 2:27 PM
To: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx; Neuman, Jeff
Cc: alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx; pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc] RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] PDP practice of confidential 
reports on public policy mattes is inappropriate

Thanks Wolf-Ulrich, this is helpful.

I'd like to clarify a couple of points on this topic.

1. The reference that Wolf-Ulrich supplies from Annex A of the Bylaws calls for 
the Council to submit a report to the Board to accompany every PDP 
recommendation.  As I said on last week's call, I would encourage the group to 
consider changes that you think should be made to enhance this process -- both 
in terms of the content of these reports (are they too long?  Can other changes 
be made to make them more useful to the board?), and also any other changes 
that you think might improve the process of Board consideration following 
Council action (for example the idea of arranging for a discussion with the 
Board, or an opportunity for dialogue, before the Board acts on key questions). 
 As Wolf-Ulrich points out, now is the time to consider improvements to the 
process.

2. The Board also asks staff to provide a summary of relevant information, 
including ICANN community positions and concerns, and its advice to the Board 
-- this is the other "Report to the Board" that is being discussed here.  The 
Board has deemed these documents to be confidential. We understand that many of 
you think that some or all of the contents of those documents should be made 
public.  You can certainly include in the PDP WT's work product a 
recommendation that this practice be changed, but until the Board directs 
otherwise, staff is not in a position to share information regarding that 
advice or to modify current practice.

Thanks, Liz



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 8:29 AM
To: jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx; Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx; pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [gnso-ppsc] RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] PDP practice of confidential 
reports on public policy mattes is inappropriate


I do not know exactly where the issue of confidential reports is referring to. 
But in case it refers to the practice regarding the submission of "Board 
Reports" according to Art. X, App. A,11 of the bylaws then actually the ongoing 
survey on the new PDP (stage 4) offers a chance to comment on this matter.
I encourage everyone to go through and add comments.

To go to the survey, enter: http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/?p=WEB229XCJFEEGB

Marika takes care about.

Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx] Im 
Auftrag von James M. Bladel
Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. Dezember 2009 17:12
An: Neuman,Jeff
Cc: Alan Greenberg; Diaz,Paul; Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [gnso-ppsc] RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] PDP practice of confidential 
reports on public policy mattes is inappropriate


Agree, Jeff.

And may also suggest we add an exception for any report that contains
confidential information regarding contract negotiations or vendor
selection that are ongoing, and could be adversely affected by
disclosure.

Thanks--

J.



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc] RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] PDP practice of 
confidential reports on public policy mattes is inappropriate
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, December 08, 2009 9:59 am
To: "Diaz, Paul" <pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
"Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>


Thanks all. Is there anyone that disagrees?

The one caveat I would give to everything being disclosed is if there is
TRULY legal advice given to the Board or issues relating to personnel
matters, then that would not need to be disclosed to the public.
However, there would need to be review to ensure that only true legal
advice and personnel matters are redacted.... For those of us in the
United States, it would be akin to the Freedom of Information Act and
having independent review of the courts to make sure that the US
Government is revealing all information except those allowed to be
confidential under the law.

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.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Diaz, Paul
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 10:37 AM
To: Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Alan Greenberg
Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc] RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] PDP practice of
confidential reports on public policy mattes is inappropriate


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