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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

At 29/05/2011 05:06 PM, Avri Doria wrote:


> 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.
When this came up, I strongly argued for extending the right to the 
Houseless NCA. If I remember correctly (and I may not), all others on 
the call (well, those that spoke) felt that this was a right that was 
really confirmed on the SG or Constituency through its Councillors 
and so the voteless NCA did not rate. It is also a reason for 
disenfranchising the other NCA, but the simplicity of wording won out 
and they kept their right in this case.
I said then and still feel that the voteless NCA is already a 
second-class citizen and there is no reason to demote them to third 
class. But this is the way the group went on that call.



> 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.
I think that I agree.

I think that proceeding to send to Council now is the right way to 
go, but our transmittal letter should state that we think that the 
GNSO Council should put the report out to comment (and not leave it 
up to them to come up with the idea). I would also say that should 
there be substantive comment, the WT is prepared to do one more pass 
on the recommendations.
Alan