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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff, several point, one your original note as well as recent additions.

Although the history as you point out is complex, 
the focus of your note was on the process the 
Council is taking. Given the history and the 
limited options that Council has, I find the 
process reasonable. Current practice (and perhaps 
now formally in the rules - don't remember) is 
that any vote can be deferred to allow additional 
time to consult with constituencies. And in this 
case, there has been plenty of warning that the 
motion is coming, which just increases the time.
I acknowledge that there is no public comment 
period, allowing for full comment from the GNSO 
Constituencies and SG should be sufficient for 
the GNSO to make a statement on its own behalf. 
Whether ICANN acts on that due to the lack of a 
public comment period is a different question.
I also note that just having the discussion does 
give staff a hard-to-ignore early warning that 
this issue may be raised by Council, and that is a good thing.
Regarding the appropriateness of the discussion 
on THIS list, I think that it is totally 
appropriate. We have been talking about the need 
for a fast-path PDP. This issue might be the 
poster-child for such a process. There is 
widespread belief that there is a problem and on 
what the solution is. But the GNSO has no FORMAL 
way to act to try to fix the problem even if there were unanimity.
Alan

At 19/05/2010 02:41 PM, 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.