RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Suggested text for report

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

Thanks Alan.  This language does indeed reflect the discussion last Thursday.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy


________________________________
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.


From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 10:29 PM
To: PDP-WT
Subject: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Suggested text for report

I was supposed to propose text in line with what I said at the meeting on 
"Consideration of Final Report by GNSO Council".  I didn't make the deadline.

Hopefully the group can still consider it. In the current redline report, it is 
on page 31 just a bit prior to the heading "2. Translation (M)".
The GNSO Council is strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time for 
Stakeholder and Councillor review of the Final Report prior to a motion being 
made to formally adopt the Report. However, the GNSO Council is also encouraged 
to take formal action on a Final Report in a timely manner, and preferably no 
later than the second Council meeting after the report is presented. At the 
request of any Council member, for any reason, consideration of the Final 
Report may be postponed for no more than one (1) meeting, provided that such 
Council member details the rationale for such a postponement. Consideration of 
the Final Report may only be postponed for a total of one (1) meeting, even if 
multiple Council members request postponement. (See Recommendation 37)
This pretty much echoes what I said in the meeting and which received general 
agreement ( http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-ppsc-pdp-22sep11-en.pdf, 
bottom of page 23).

I am fine with the other changes made as a result of our last meeting.

However, I did note that 6 times in the report, "that that" occurs (one was in 
the text I just suggested replacing, leaving 5). Two "that"s in sequence is 
occasionally good grammar, but as I read it, this is not the case here. Someone 
who is more awake that I am at the moment should verify. The first occurrence 
is in Rec 11:

The PDP-WT recommends that that there is a mandatory public comment period that 
follows the publication of a Preliminary Issue Report and before the GNSO 
Council is asked to consider the initiation of a PDP.
Alan