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

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

I agree with James' comments

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: Monday, February 21, 2011 7:30 AM
To: Marika Konings
Cc: Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Questions / comments


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.  


+ “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.

JMB:  Agree.

+ “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?

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.

+ 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’?

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
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.


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