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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Alan,

I think you are correct, it is a continuation of the same disparagement of the 
NCA role that was integral to the restructuring and persists among many GNSO 
participants.

It is also a change in the current tradition - actually it has been changing 
during the current g-council's term.  The tradition did leave out the NCA's 
because it has traditionally been a SG or C that could request the delay.  This 
changes it to an individual councilor's rights.  

Since no one really reads the comments attached to the report and since I do 
not recall this discussion as part of the WT deliberations, I will probably use 
the comment period to make the case against the change in the tradition and the 
continued devaluation and marginalization of NCA g-council members.  At least 
those get read and are included in the synopsis.  It is sometimes important to 
file a objection as part of the report, even if it is ignored; when it deals 
with a principle that is  fundamental to the report it needs to be included in 
the primary text. I see this as a tangential issue, albeit one that is 
important in its own right.  Hence the comment period is fine for making the 
case.

a.

On 29 May 2011, at 23:17, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> 
> 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.
> 
>