RE: [gnso-ppsc] Revised Language for 2 outstanding issues in Working Group Guidelines

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

Just to be clear, you are asking only whether there is a consensus on 
recommending to the Council that our final report go out for public comment 
prior to the Council's consideration.  Is that correct?

I did go over the plan with the group and asked if there were any comments or 
anyone that disagreed with the approach.  No one objected or disagreed and 
frankly putting something out for public comment seemed so benign that I did 
not issue a formal consensus call on that approach and took the lack of 
disagreement as approval of the process.  The people that were there included 
myself (Registries), J Scott (IPC), Marilyn Cade (BC), Alan Greenberg (ALAC), 
Wolf K. (ISPs), Tim Ruiz (Registrars).  You were also present and did not 
seemingly object at the time, so yes I believed there was consensus.  However, 
if you would like, I can re-ask the question when I do a consensus call on the 
substance.

Avri - are you for or against recommending to the Council that this goes out 
for public comment?  If you can also please provide your rationale so that I, 
as chair, can understand and reflect as necessary.

Thanks.

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.



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Avri Doria
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 10:22 AM
To: gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc] Revised Language for 2 outstanding issues in Working 
Group Guidelines


Dear Jeff,

I just do not remember a consensus call where everyone agreed.  A call with few 
members (how many PPSc members here on the call?) does not count as a consensus 
in my understanding of the PPSC requirements for full and active  consensus.  
So I am trying to understand whether proper procedure was followed or whether 
you have decided to just declare consensus.  If you are declaring it, then I am 
challenging you to prove it.  I believe it is critical that a committee 
responsible for defining policy and procedures follow its own policies and 
procedures meticulously .

a.


On 13 Dec 2010, at 10:10, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> Yes.  We discussed this on the call on December 1st, reiterated it at the 
> Sunday meeting on December 5th, and then at the Council on the 8th and 
> everyone seemed in agreement.  If you would like to note your objection for 
> this going out to public comment, I would be happy to note that for the 
> Council.  If you do, however, I would like to know your rationale, so I may 
> let the Council know at the appropriate time.
> 
> Thanks. 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
> Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 9:27 AM
> To: gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc] Revised Language for 2 outstanding issues in Working 
> Group Guidelines
> 
> 
> Do we have consensus on that?
> 
> a.
> 
> On 13 Dec 2010, at 09:20, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Avri,
>> 
>> Remember, we (the ppsc) are not sending this out for public comment, but we 
>> are recommending that the gnso send this out for public comment as there 
>> have been some changes to the report since it was last out for public 
>> comment (which was at the initial report stage). 
>> 
>> 
>> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
>> Vice President, Law & Policy
>> NeuStar, Inc.
>> Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 09:16 AM
>> To: gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc] Revised Language for 2 outstanding issues in 
>> Working Group Guidelines
>> 
>> 
>> The council needs to approve sending things out for public comment?
>> Since when?
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> On 13 Dec 2010, at 08:46, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>> 
>>> Thanks.  
>>> 
>>> Marika/Margie - Can you all pull together the final version incorporating 
>>> all of this language and then I will call for a formal consensus call among 
>>> the PPSC for approval.  We will then draft a motion to propose to the GNSO 
>>> Council sending this out for public comment as we discussed.
>>> 
>>> Thanks everyone.
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx] On 
>>> Behalf Of Avri Doria
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 7:31 PM
>>> To: gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc] Revised Language for 2 outstanding issues in 
>>> Working Group Guidelines
>>> 
>>> 
>>> sure.
>>> a.
>>> 
>>> On 9 Dec 2010, at 18:32, J. Scott Evans wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I am fine with this.  Others?
>>>> 
>>>> J. Scott
>>>> 
>>>> j. scott evans - senior legal director, global brand and trademarks - 
>>>> Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> To: jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> Cc: marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2010 10:53:16 AM
>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc] Revised Language for 2 outstanding issues in 
>>>> Working Group Guidelines
>>>> 
>>>> J. Scott,
>>>> 
>>>> As I said, the second revised section looks fine to me, but I would like
>>>> to suggest rewording the first on to something like the following:
>>>> 
>>>> "Based upon the WG's needs, the Chair may direct that WG participants do
>>>> not have to have their name explicitly associated with any Full
>>>> Consensus or Consensus view/position. However, in all other cases and
>>>> in those cases where a group member represents the minority viewpoint,
>>>> their name must be explicitly linked, especially in those cases where
>>>> polls where taken."
>>>> 
>>>> I believe it doesn't change the intent but makes it more explicit.
>>>> 
>>>> Tim
>>>> 
>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>> Subject: [gnso-ppsc] Revised Language for 2 outstanding issues in
>>>>> Working Group Guidelines
>>>>> From: "J. Scott Evans" 
>>>>> Date: Wed, December 08, 2010 3:59 pm
>>>>> To: PPSC 
>>>>> Cc: Marika Konings 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dear All:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I apologize for the delay in getting this back to you.  I have attached a 
>>>>> Word document containing my suggested revisions to the 2 sections we 
>>>>> discussed in our call on December 1, 2010.  Please let me have your 
>>>>> feedback.
>>>>> 
>>>>> J. Scott
>>>>> 
>>>>> j. scott evans - senior legal director, global brand and trademarks - 
>>>>> Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>