Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] FW: Open Letter to the GNSO Council: Accountability & Transparency starts at the Bottom

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I put myself as record as one who does disagree with you.

While I was part of the IDNG group and was one of the coauthors of the letter, 
my reason goes beyond that.

If the Council is so hampered that its  members cannot make any decisions, 
including simple ones like a letter pointing out an errors in a process, then 
we might as well just set up a monthly plebiscite for the SGs and forget about 
council members.  Have a vote, tally the results of members of each SG and 
allocate the votes: how? - winner takes all?  proportionate to the vote?

I think that allowing the council to make decisions within the constraints of 
their knowledge of their respective SGs give real representation.  Having 
elected representatives allows for a SG to have nuance in its vote as they can 
vote for thing in support of the membership and can represent minority 
viewpoints as well as the dominant viewpoint that would control in situations 
were every vote is SG driven.

It certainly makes sense for a council to do as they have often done and say - 
wait, i can't vote on this yet because i have not had time to gauge the views 
in my SG - lets vote next meeting..  But the idea of a formal comment period 
for every utterance the council makes is frightening.

As for the weight of a statement that comes from the council or from a many 
month process, the Staff and the Board can tell the difference.  And a  letter 
from council  is something they can take account of or not with no pressure on 
them to give it the weight of a consensus decision.  That is why consensus 
decisions are special - but it does not mean that all council  utterances must 
be consensus decisions.


Anyway, I am not really sure that this is part of our PDP WT issue. 

a.

On 19 May 2010, at 14:41, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> All,
>  
> I sent the following note to the GNSO Council which I hope they will post on 
> their list.  I know some on this list may not agree with me on this view, but 
> I believe the GNSO should never vote on a substantive motion without the 
> ability for comment by the GNSO community.  This is what may happen tomorrow.
>  
> 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: Neuman, Jeff 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 2:37 PM
> To: cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder; Olga Cavalli; Caroline Greer; Edmon Chung; Glen de 
> Saint Géry; Rosette, Kristina; Tim Ruiz; Adrian Kinderis; Neuman, Jeff
> Subject: Open Letter to the GNSO Council: Accountability & Transparency 
> starts at the Bottom
>  
> Dear members of the GNSO Council,
>  
> This is being written in my personal capacity, not on behalf of Neustar and 
> not on behalf of the Policy Process Steering Committee or PDP Work Team of 
> which I am the chair.  I ask that you send this to the entire council as I do 
> not have posting privileges and there is no public comment period or forum 
> for this issue (which as you will see is one of the issues I discuss below).  
>   
>  
> I am writing to you today to express my concerns about a motion that you will 
> be voting on tomorrow regarding the new gTLD process, particularly with 
> respect to asking the staff to amend the Draft Applicant Guidebook.  First at 
> the outset, let me state for the record that I support the substance of the 
> proposals and believe the DAG should be changed.  However, despite the fact 
> that I support the substance, I do not support this ad hoc process which I 
> believe is extending the GNSO Council’s role far beyond its role as an 
> administrative coordinating body and into the realm of policy development or 
> at best implementation.  I have expressed my concerns to my stakeholder 
> group, but because they support the substance of the motion and are afraid 
> that voting no will somehow detract from the substance, I believe I will be 
> outvoted even though some of those voting in favor do oppose the process 
> which was used.  I would have posted my concerns in the public forum for this 
> motion, but none was created.  Perhaps this may be an idea for future motions?
>  
> The IDNG was formed last year to look specifically at the drafting a charter 
> for a working group to look at the issue of whether there should be a 
> fast-track IDN gTLD Process.  My understanding was that the drafting team was 
> unable to come to consensus on creating such a working group or what should 
> be in such a charter.  At that point, I believe the drafting team should have 
> been disbanded, but that is not my issue for now.  The drafting team 
> continued to discuss IDN gTLD issues and came across what the members of the 
> drafting team believed was a flaw in the DAG, one in which they are trying to 
> rectify with this motion.   I am glad someone found this flaw and I am glad 
> that the members of the drafting team would like this addressed (as I do).   
> However, the  approach the Council is getting ready to take on this is one 
> which sets a dangerous precedent for the future in setting policy at the 
> Council level as opposed to bottom-up. 
>  
> The Council has before it a recommendation from the IDNG to send a note 
> directly to the ICANN staff (and by cc: the ICANN Board) directing it to 
> change the current version of the DAG to address this flaw.  Rather than 
> taking that recommendation and putting it out for public comments or opening 
> up a comment forum to address the issues, it is unilaterally proposing to 
> take matters into its own hands and pass this resolution.  In doing so, the 
> GNSO Council it will send a message to the ICANN Staff and to the Board, that 
> it is a legislative policy making body as opposed to that of a policy 
> manager/coordinator.  I understand that many on the Council believe time is 
> of the essence because the next version of the DAG is supposed to be released 
> in the next couple of weeks.  However, please take note that this is not the 
> last opportunity to comment on the DAG.  In fact, there is no public comment 
> period to submit this to the staff now anyway.  In looking at the Council 
> mailing lists, it appears that changes are still being discussed to the 
> motion and I am afraid it is being rushed through.  How can an issue get to 
> the Council and a resolution passed, without ever putting that issue out for 
> a public comment?
>  
> If Council members do support the substance of the motion (as I do), then the 
> proper thing for the council to do is to encourage those members in support 
> of the substance, including the IDNG Drafting Team, to send a letter on their 
> own behalf to the ICANN staff either now or during a formal public comment 
> period.  Or, if it really wants to have a letter come from the Council to the 
> staff, it should put out this motion for public comment until at least the 
> next meeting to get input from the community.  However, the Council should 
> not be sending such a letter now to the staff or to the Board without getting 
> such input from the community in which it is supposed to be serving.  Doing 
> so creates the false impression that at this point in time the motion has 
> broad community support.  It may have such support, but without putting it 
> out for comment, you are not giving those that may oppose an opportunity to 
> be heard.   We chastise the ICANN Board for taking such actions, and should 
> lead by example.
>  
> As someone who is deeply involved in helping to reshape the PDP and WG 
> processes of the future and one who has spent way too much time thinking 
> about this kind of stuff, I believe that if the GNSO Council votes and 
> approves this motion tomorrow, it will be not only going against the very 
> fabric of what the Board Governance Committee stated was the role of the GNSO 
> Council, but will be setting a very bad precedent for bypassing the policy 
> process in the future. 
>  
> Thank you for considering my note.
>  
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> 
> 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.
>