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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with most of what James said. The exception is regarding the question:

Wouldn't the proposed addition of "If approved by 
the Council by the required thresholds" to 
section 1 (required elements of a PDP) ...
I tend to agree with Marika on this. I would add 
a comment (or parenthetical or whatever style is 
right) saying that some WG members feel that this 
statement may need to change based on the outcome 
of further discussions on the Rec 42 clarification.
Alan

At 21/02/2011 08:30 AM, James M. Bladel wrote:

> Feedback is below (in-line).
>
> Thanks--
>
> J.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Questions / comments
> From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, February 21, 2011 6:22 am
> To: "Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> 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.
>
> JMB:  I agree that translations of the Executive Summary are critical.
> Is most of the material in Section 2 duplicated or referenced there?  I
> haven't checked our schedule / timeline, but I am ok with a brief (1-2
> week) extension to the comment period if we fee the Executive Summary
> doesn't sufficiently cover the recommendations.
>
>
> + â??The WT recommends that the definition of a â??GNSO Supermajority
> voteâ?? 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 houseâ??. ­ Jeffâ??s comment:
> Can we put this in the  Exec Sum as this is a pretty important
> recommendation. â?? Iâ??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.
>
> JMB:  Agree.
>
> + â??The WT also discussed whether the board should be able to pick and
> choose recommendations or whether they should be adopted or rejected
> â??en blockâ?? 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 boardâ??. Jeffâ??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?
>
> JMB:  I support Jeff, and to Marika's concern:  I think we focused most
> of our discussion on this topic at the GNSO Council level.  I don't
> believe the idea that the Board should not do this was controversial.
>
> + Wouldnâ??t the proposed addition of â??If approved by the Council by
> the required thresholdsâ?? 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 â??actâ???
>
> JMB:  I support Jeff's addition.  The Board can "act" on GNSO-rejected
> recommendations by initiating a PDP/Issues Report of their own.
>
> + 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
>
> JMB:  ?
>
> + 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
> Jeffâ??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.
>
>
> JMB:  I remember we had this discussion at length (and unfortunately I
> was in the car at the time).  Overall, I would like to see the Bylaws /
> Annex A contain as much of the process as possible, without overloading
> it with detail.  I think Jeff's edits achieve this.  As an aside,
> perhaps we should note that future proposed changes to the Manual
> require a more formal process (similar to the PPSC?)
>
>
> Your feedback would be appreciated.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Marika