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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

As I pointed out in my message, the same logic would deny the ability 
to delay to the two NCAs in the Houses. Be we inconsistently chose to 
not do that to preserve the clean rule (voting Councillors). I think 
that it sends a really wrong message about how NCAs are valued 
(perhaps an accurate message, but not one that we should be proud of).
A single Councillor who wants the time to consider an issue should be 
given the same courtesy as a Const. or SG. In the latters, the 
deliberations can be delegated to a non-Councillor who may have more 
time. The NCA does not have that flexibility.
Alan

At 29/05/2011 09:31 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> 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.