RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Updated outstanding issues document + action items

["David W. Maher" <dmaher@xxxxxxx>]

+1

David W. Maher                    
Senior Vice President - Law & Policy    
Public Interest Registry
+1 312 375 4849                    

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 9:05 AM
To: Alan Greenberg
Cc: PDP WT
Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Updated outstanding issues document + action items


This seems as though we are creating a "Reconsideration Request" at the
Council level.  Why?  Has this been a problem in the past?

I agree that establishing a post-vote dialogue between the Council and
the requesting SO/AC is a good idea.  But I disagree that a re-vote is
required.  Mandating that the Council re-vote on the issue undermines
their role as managers of the policy development process, and it's easy
to predict that -every- PDP that does not pass the Council will require
two votes.


I could support the exception scenario in which the SO/AC believes there
were material omissions in the issues report, and that Council needs to
reconsider new information that wasn't available during their first
vote. 

Thanks--

J.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Updated outstanding issues document + 
action items
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, February 03, 2011 1:44 pm
To: PDP WT <gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>

 On rereading this, it may be taken the "requesting a re-vote" could be
refused by the GNSO. Changing the end of the sentence to "... for such a
re-vote which cannot be refused by the GNSO Council." fixes it, but
perhaps there is a more elegant way of phrasing it.

 Alan

 At 03/02/2011 02:14 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
 At 03/02/2011 11:42 AM, Marika Konings wrote:  
+ Recommendation # 18 - There was support for modifying the
recommendation so that it would highlight that dialogue between GNSO
Council members and the requesting AC would be adesirable option to
pursue following a vote against the initiation of a PDPeither to better
understand the reasons for declining a PDP and/or determining whether
there would be options to modify the request so that it would receive
support. Alan agreed to draft language for consideration by the WT.

 Draft text for Recommendation 18

 The PDP-WT recommends that if the GNSO votes to not initiate a PDP
following an Issues Report requested by an AC, the AC or its
representatives should have the right to a meeting with representatives
of the GNSO, and in particular, those voting against the PDP, to discuss
the rationale for the rejection and why the AC feels that
reconsideration is appropriate. Following this meeting, the AC may
submit a statement to the GNSO Council requesting a re-vote and giving
it's rationale for such re-vote. This process may be followed just once
for any given Issues Report.