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

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'd like to weigh in support of our WG considering how to advance making 
further reports in the PDP process available, to the community, even if it is 
at the time that the documents are transmitted to the Board. I am surprised 
that this list has been surprised that the reports Liz Gasster mentions are not 
public. They began some time ago. I have made a few statements at the public 
mike at meetings suggesting that all such reports from staff -- not just policy 
staff -- be posted to the community as well as 'background documents'. 
I do think this is a Board issue, not a policy staff issue. Overall, it 
probably belongs as well in the Public Participation board working group.  Of 
course, confidential information would need to be redacted. 




> From: liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx
> To: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx; Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx
> CC: alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx; pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
> gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
> Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 11:26:41 -0800
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>