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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Alan,

Thanks for the explanation.  I must have missed that meeting, or been 
distracted because I most definitely would have argued with you on the issue of 
the houseless NCA.  

Assuming this is going to stay as it is, I will be filing a comment, with my 
apology for having missed the issue earlier.

a.

On 29 May 2011, at 22:00, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> 
> 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
> 
> 
>