RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Re: comments on PPSC PDP WG Draft Final Report

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The Final Report should not be rushed.  This string and the Outstanding
Issues document indicate that there are a lot of outstanding issues yet to
be incorporated in the draft final report.  It is not ready to be called a
draft Final Report.

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087

 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com

 

From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 8:53 AM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Re: comments on PPSC PDP WG Draft Final Report

 

As we discussed on the last call, when reading the current version of the
report, you need to read it in conjunction with the notes on the outstanding
issues.  We do not have the luxury of time to produce another version and
then another round of comments.  I understand that there are some issues in
reviewing it, but unfortunately it is unavoidable when you have meetings
concurrent with review periods.

 

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 Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 11:47 AM
To: Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Re: comments on PPSC PDP WG Draft Final Report

 

Based on this string, it seems best to wait until the next version of the
report before reviewing.

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087

http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> 

 

From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 6:32 AM
To: Diaz, Paul; Neuman, Jeff
Cc: Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Re: comments on PPSC PDP WG Draft Final Report

 

Thanks Paul and James for your feedback. Please see some initial comments
below in blue in relation to some of your concerns. 

 

Marika

 

From: "Diaz, Paul" <pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 05:44:43 -0800
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, "Neuman, Jeff"
<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: comments on PPSC PDP WG Draft Final Report

 

Hi Marika,

 

James and I combined our comments/edits into the attached PPSC PDP WG Draft
Final Report.  Much of it is straightforward, but we do have a couple of
significant concerns:

 

In Section 1, Executive Summary:

 

*       RE: Recommendation 10 (starting on Line 190), we believe the WT
should put forward a single recommendation - Option B.  If the WT does not
have consensus on this, then the Report should note the level(s) of support
for the other options.

MK: Please see the notes in the outstanding issues document. The WT agreed
to include option 2 in a slightly modified form. This will be included in
the next version of the report.

 

*       RE: Recommendation 15 (starting on Line 242), we thought the WT has
come down AGAINST recommending a "fast track" procedure for PDPs.  As such,
we believe this Recommendation should be deleted from the Report.

MK: Please see notes in the outstanding issues document. There was no
consensus, but it was agreed to 'keep this issue open for the moment and
discuss it in the near future after having reviewed again the comments
received in relation to this issue'. This recommendation will be updated (or
deleted) following this further discussion.

 

*       RE: Recommendation 22 (starting on Line 318), this sounds like a
round-a-bout way to say "status quo."  We suggest deleting this text.

 

v  v      RE: Recommendation 24 (starting on Line 335), we want to see the
text flipped, i.e. "in scope" should be based upon contracted parties'
definitions of Concensus Policies."  While an ideal and robust definition of
"in scope" would see no difference between the perspectives on ICANN's
scope, the simple reality is that no such definition exists.  As "ICANN's
mission and the role of the GNSO" will always be open to different
interpretations," we don't see how potential issues can be predictably
"mapped" against the Bylawsand/or Affirmation of Commitments.  If the other
members of the WG areunwilling to change this formulation, then we cannot
support the proposal and will want to see our strong opposition to the text
duly noted.

 

*       RE: Recommendation 28 (starting on Line 368), we suggest including
"and how the proposed PDP is aligned with ICANN's Strategic Plan" to the end
of the sentence.  This will further prevent frivolous PDPs and unnecessary
wasting of ICANN's and the Community's limited resources.

 

*       On Line 463, it appears the text is garbled.  We're not sure what
really is being recommended here.

 

 

In Section 2, all of our comments/edits apply (as most of the Executive
Summary text appears to have been lifted from this section).

 

In Section 3, RE: Translation (starting on Line 1076), the Report should
note that ICANN should not default to paid translation, as this will incur
more time and costs make.  Rather, multi-lingual volunteers should be sought
for (non-governing) translations of key documents.  We offer suggested
language at Line 1114.  RE: Transition (starting on Line 1379), we think the
WT settled this on our 13 January 2011 call, but need to see proposed text.
In our view, simplicity favors the cut-in approach.

 

In Section 4, RE: Basis for a new Annex A: 

 

*       Is the WT proposing the wholesale replacement of the existing Bylaws
section with the language we have developed?  We realize that a lot of the
existing text simply carries over, but are concerned that the Community will
balk if/when we suggest an entire "rewrite."  Shouldn't we just show the
changes we're proposing, so it's easier for non-WT members to see the
differences?  

 MK: This is indeed what has been proposed (the wholesale replacement).

*       Weren't we going to set all public comment periods at no less than
30 days?  If so, see edit at Line 1421. 

MK: Please see notes in outstanding issues document. WT agreed to 'Require
public comment period of a minimum of 30 days for Issue Report and Initial
Report, with a minimum of 21 days for other public comment periods a WG
might choose to initiate'. This will be updated in the next version of the
report.

 

*       At Line 1440, please clarify that we mean ICANN (the Corporation).  

 

*       RE: Board Approval Processes (f) (starting at Line 1459), what is
the point of a "tentative vote"?  Board votes should not be taken lightly,
especially in an age of significant resource constraints.  If the Board is
looking for input ahead of a formal vote, they have plenty of informal
opportunities and communication channels to vet the Community's positions.
We strongly recommend deleting this sub-section (f).

 

*       In sub-section 9, Maintenance of Records (starting at Line 1492),
please add our proposed clarifying text about what is expected.

 

In Section 5, PDP Procedure Manual:

 

*       Suggest adding "Consistent with ICANN's commitment to fact-based
policy development," to the beginning of Line 1532.

 

*       RE: sub-section 6.5, Creation of the Preliminary Issue Report
(starting on Line 1558), shouldn't the WT just offer a single option?  We
support Option #1.  If there's support for Option #2, please poll the WT and
note the levels of support for each option.  RE: the list if issues for the
ICANN General Counsel to consider (Lines 1586-1599), should these be read
with "and" connectors or with "or" connectors?  We believe some kind of
connectors should be used or else the GC is left free to pick and choose at
his sole discretion.  Finally, on Lines 1598-1599 please split the issues
into two bullet points.

MK: Please see notes in the outstanding issues document. This section will
be updated according to the WT agreement in the next version of the
document.

 

*       Again, for consistency, aren't all public comment periods through
the Report to be "no less than thirty (30) days" (see Line 1738)?

MK: As noted before, this will be updated in the next version of the report
according to the WT agreement.

 

*       RE: sub-section 6.12, Expedited PDP Procedures, didn't the WT move
away from supporting such a process?  If so, this sub-section should be cut
(again, as we suggested re: deletion of Recommendation #15).  If it stays
in, we believe the Council threshold to approve a "fast track" PDP should be
a super-majority vote of BOTH houses.  Otherwise, we raise the possibility
that this mechanism will easily over-used/abused.

 MK: As noted before, this will be updated in the next version of the report
according to the WT agreement.

*       RE: sub-section 6.16, Termination of PDP Prior to Final Report, the
WT discussed this at the 13 January 2011 call.  We still need to see
proposed text, but offer some suggested edits consistent with where we
believe the WT came down.

MK: Please see notes in the outstanding issues document. This will be
updated in the next version of the report according to the WT agreement. 

 

Best regards, P