Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Questions / comments

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

All,

I am on blackberry for much of the day today. These are personal comments.

Let me caution that everyone should read the text in the comments I sent 
around, because they way they are called out in this e-mail sound different 
than how I put them in the comments when you look at context in the report 
itself.

So for example, although I added some things back to the bylaws, there is still 
considerably much less detail in the bylaws than in the Manual. So, unlike the 
question below, there is no contradiction as the question in the last bullet 
states. In other words, yes there should be less detail in the bylaws, but that 
does not mean the bylaws should be void of any details on the process. We need 
a balance.

We can add a general footnote or question in the solicitation for public 
comment asking in general what members of the public think should be in the 
bylaws vs. Manual.

On a separate note, I wanted key new things that the pdp wt was recommending to 
be included in the exec sum and/or list of recommendations so that those who 
read the report actually see them. If just hidden in the manual, I am afraid 
they won't be seen and commented on. So I went through the report to look at 
what was new and where I found new things, commented that they should be called 
out.

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



From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 07:22 AM
To: Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Questions / comments

In addressing Jeff's comments on the latest version of the proposed Final 
Report, I came across the following issues / questions:

 *   Question for ICANN staff: We are recommending that all recommendations be 
translated. Are we going to do that for this report? - We can (executive 
summary + section 2 of the report), but the WT would need to discuss what the 
impact on the public comment forum would be. Most likely the translations would 
be available just before or just after the SFO meeting (I would need to check 
with our translation department for a more exact date), while the public 
comment forum is foreseen to close on 1 April.
 *   “The WT recommends that the definition of a ‘GNSO Supermajority vote’ is 
redefined to include the original meaning of GNSO Supermajority i.e. 2/3 of 
Council members of each house so a GNSO Supermajority vote would be 75% of one 
House and a majority of the other house or 2/3 of Council members of each 
house”. – Jeff’s comment: Can we put this in the Exec Sum as this is a pretty 
important recommendation. – I’ve added a new recommendation at the end of the 
recommendations section to reflect this (recommendation # 48) and have 
highlighted it in the executive summary.
 *   “The WT also discussed whether the board should be able to pick and choose 
recommendations or whether they should be adopted or rejected ‘en block’ as has 
been current practice. Most agreed that the board should only be able to adopt 
or reject the GNSO Council recommendations as a whole as policy development is 
supposed to be done at the SO level, not by the board”. Jeff’s comment: This 
perhaps should be called out in a Recommendation in the Recommendation section 
or pointed out in the Exec Sum. – Should we leave this for the next version of 
the report as the WT did not discuss this in great detail and no specific 
recommendation has been proposed apart from the notes of a previous discussion?
 *   Wouldn’t the proposed addition of “If approved by the Council by the 
required thresholds” to section 1 (required elements of a PDP) of the new Annex 
A, prejudge the outcome of the outstanding discussion on whether the Board can 
act on recommendations that have not been approved by the required GNSO voting 
threshold? Would it be better to leave this proposed addition out for now and 
consider this following the outcome of the discussion on the Board can ‘act’?
 *   Moving the whole section on the creation of the Issue Report from the 
Manual to the Bylaws contradicts recommendation 6 – I presume we can fix this 
in the Final Report
 *   As a general note, the WT should discuss going forward how much detail is 
needed in Annex A as some details have moved back to the Annex A with Jeff’s 
edits. This seems to contradict previous discussions the WT had on having less 
details in the Bylaws and more explanation in theManual, which is also 
consistent with the BGC advice.

Your feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Marika