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

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

In the general case, I'm in Jeff's corner on this one.  As a relative
newcomer to ICANN, I find it discouraging that the processes I've worked
to learn are frequently circumvented in the name of expediency.

Which, to Alan's point, re-emphasizes the need for a formal "fast track"
process (which can also then be circumvented for not being sufficiently
fast-tracky).


J.



-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] FW: Open Letter to the GNSO Council: 
Accountability & Transparency starts at the Bottom
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, May 20, 2010 8:21 am
To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, 
"Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-ppsc-pdp@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.