Re: AW: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Draft Revisions to Sections 3 and beyond - ALL PLEASE READ

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

Good news is that Wolf's comments (and Marilyn's response) relate to my cover 
note as opposed to the text in the report so I do not believe any changes need 
to be made. We can always decide as a result of the public comments to put the 
language I added back to the bylaws (where they exist today) into the PDP 
manual. For now, I suggest we leave where I put them to get comment.

Marilyn, yes we still have the notion of having a PDP if the GC declares it out 
of scope (as that is newly defined) with the higher thresholds. It is currently 
a bylaw requirement that the GC provide his or her opinion for every PDP at the 
issues report stage. No one on the WT has suggested otherwise to date.


Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx



From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2011 01:21 PM
To: Wolf Knoben <knobenw@xxxxxxxxxx>; Neuman, Jeff; Marika Konings 
<marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>; gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: AW: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Draft Revisions to Sections 3 and beyond - ALL 
PLEASE READ


Let me see if I understand our concerns:
1)  we want legal support from the GC's office, as appropriate and needed, to 
support the PDP process, and we want it in a timely manner.
2) Do we want the ability to ask for legal opinion as a routine part of all 
PDPs, or as needed, and upon request?[sorry, sort of clumsy in how I worded 
that]?
3) Did we maintain the ability of the Council, by a super majority vote, to 
decide to proceed with an Issues Report or a PDP, even if the GC rules a topic 
out of scope?
Comment: As some will recall, that did occur one time, during the time I was on 
the Council -- PDP06, I believe.



________________________________
Subject: AW: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Draft Revisions to Sections 3 and beyond - ALL 
PLEASE READ
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:04:44 +0100
From: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
To: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx; marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx

Arguing with "ICANN staff is not bound by obligations in a GNSO Council 
document, but rather can only be bound by Bylaws of the organization" may 
seduce others in future to squeeze their ideas into the bylaws??

Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich


________________________________
Von: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx] Im 
Auftrag von Neuman, Jeff
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 17. Februar 2011 22:18
An: Marika Konings; Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Draft Revisions to Sections 3 and beyond - ALL PLEASE 
READ


Marika & PDP Team,

Please find enclosed my proposed revisions to Sections 3 and 4 (Overarching 
Issues) and (Annex A to the Bylaws). I still need to review the PDP Manual 
section, but I wanted to make sure you had this when you woke up in the morning 
as I may not have that last section done until tomorrow.



In re-reading all of the recommendations, I have recommended that some 
additional provisions and references be added to the Bylaws to be consistent 
with what is there today.  In addition, where I saw staff obligations (like a 
General Council Opinion) mention in the Manual, I added some of that to the 
Bylaws.  The reason is that ICANN staff is not bound by obligations in a GNSO 
Council document, but rather can only be bound by Bylaws of the organization.  
Therefore, if we expect the GC to do something, it needs to be in the Bylaws 
rather than the Manual.  I did not really create any new text for the Bylaw 
outline, but moved some text from what was in the Manual.  I did not take all 
the text, but rather took enough to get the gist and then refer to the PDP 
Manual.



An example I added to the Bylaws was:



Section 5:  Reports



An Initial Report should be delivered to the GNSO Council and posted for a 
public comment period of not less than 30 days, which time may be extended in 
accordance with the PDP Manual.   Following the review of the comments received 
and, if required, additional deliberations, a Final Report shall be produced 
for transmission to the Council.

Although we want the details in the Manual, there should be a reference in the 
Bylaws of what the required outputs are in a sequential order as in the current 
Bylaws.  I know that is what Marika tried to do in Section 1 of the Bylaws, but 
without more context in the bylaws, I personally believed it was not enough.



These are my personal comments and not comments of my stakeholder group, 
company or as Chair.

Thanks.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166
Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / 
jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>  / 
www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>

________________________________

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.