RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] For your review - updated version of PDP-WT Final Report

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

Avri,

On number 1, I believe it was intentional as the purpose we discussed of 
delaying a vote was to give our constituencies/SGs more time to consider the 
motions as a group to get the input we as Councilors need to make in informed 
decision. I do not believe the NCAs are in the same situation.  Group, correct 
me if I am wrong.

On number 2, Marika and Margie can you weigh in on this, but on first glance, 
it would seem that Avri is correct.

Thanks.

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
Please note new address:  21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling VA 20166     


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.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2011 5:06 PM
To: Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] For your review - updated version of PDP-WT Final 
Report



On 25 May 2011, at 09:57, Marika Konings wrote:

> Please find posted on the wiki 
> (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoppsc/Next+Meeting) an updated 
> version of the Final Report. This version includes the proposed language to 
> address the Board vote (see section 8 on page 45-46 of the pdf) and 
> transition / applicability (see section 13 on page 46-47 of the pdf). We also 
> would like to raise the following issues:


Hi,

In terms of all the issues we have discussed in this last revision, I think 
that the contents correspond to my understanding of the consensus reached in 
the group.

I have questions on 2 other issues in the report.  I think the following 
comments are non blocking, but they will probably need to be commented on in 
any comment period or somewhere.

1. 

In Recommendation 15 (and 37), did we mean to exclude the Houseless NCA from 
requesting a delay?  Do we put this NCA in  the class with Liaisons?   Doesn't 
seem like we should.  Yes, i should have asked sooner but was only paying 
attention to controversial items.


A fix might be to modify the footnote on Voting to:

include those who have a right to vote or make motions 

As the houseless NCA can make and second motions.  Unless of course we meant to 
exclude them, in which case, I don't remember that specific discussion, though 
I might have missed it.


2.

Do we contradict ourselves;


in Recommendation 23.       Mode of operation for a PDP (M)

The PDP-WT recommends that even though a Working Group currently forms the 
basic mode of operation for a PDP, there should be flexibility to accommodate 
different working methods if deemed appropriate by the GNSO Council, in 
accordance with the GNSO Operating Rules. For example, in the past use has been 
made of "Task Forces" as well as a "Committee of the Whole". Any such new 
working methods must contain each of the mandatory elements set forth in the 
ICANN Bylaws and PDP Manual.

yet in the Bylaws change we are requiring:

Annex A, Section 1

c.     Formation of a Working Group;

d.     Initial Report produced by a Working Group;

e.      Final Report produced by a Working Group and forwarded to the Council 
for deliberation


Should it be?

c.     Formation of a Working Group or other designated work method;

d.     Initial Report produced by a Working Group or other designated work 
method;

e.      Final Report produced by a Working Group, or otherwise, and forwarded 
to the Council for deliberation


This would parallel what was done later in section 6.