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

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

Thank you Avri.  I have noted your objections and will put out both the 
consensus call on the substance as well as the consensus call on whether to 
recommend to the Council that they commence a public comment period.  I will 
also note for the record that many on the call and in the meeting that you 
missed did believe that there were enough substantive changes to 
recommendations since the initial report that did merit a comment period.  As a 
Registry Stakeholder Group member (and not as the chair), I do share that view. 
 Plus, I will also note that the Council usually does commence a public comment 
period anyway before taking action on a particular subject.

In either case, we will need to communicate to the Council the specific process 
that was followed and when public comment periods were had (or not had).

Best regards,

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 11:13 AM
To: gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc] Revised Language for 2 outstanding issues in Working 
Group Guidelines


Dear Jeff,

With all due respect, I do not beleive I was at the Dec 5 meeting as I was 
attending the OSC meeting at the time.  And I think only 4 non-staff attended 
the Dec 1 call, including the two chairs.  I also ask , of those you listed as 
attending the meeting on Dec 5 and participating in the decision, how many were 
the actual PPSC representatives.  Again, I think we need to be strict about our 
methodology in decision making, and it is the members of the PPSC who are the 
ones who should be making the decisions via the consensus process:

from https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?ppsc_charter

> Decision Making for the PPSC
>       * Unless otherwise determined by the PPSC members, committee decisions 
> will be made using a "full consensus of the members" process.


- I had spoken previously about there really being no need for this to go to 
another community comment period.  I know public comment periods like  mother's 
milk for ICANN, but the changes had not been substantive and many have spoken 
about the comment overload the community is going through.  Also, we are 
talking about a set of guidelines not a PDP, so I thought just bringing them to 
a vote in the council, after doing a proper Stakeholder group review of the 
changes might have been enough.  If the Council believes it needs to go to 
public comment before it can vote on them, fine, let them so decide.  It is a 
matter of division of labor, the PPSC approves the work of the WGWT when it is 
ready to do so and think it has gone through the processes it needs and only 
then sends it to the council.  The council in its independent role from the 
PPSC decides what to do next.  I believe I argued this on Dec 1, but was 
overruled by the chairs.

- If we were to have PPSC consensus that a public comment is required, then it 
should be done by the PPSC itself since this is the group (or its designated 
sub-team) that would need to respond to any further comments.  We cannot have a 
comment period that ignores the responses, and the council in its managerial 
role can only send the document back to the PPSC to resolve any issues; it does 
not have the authority to act on them itself other than to vote against the 
proposed guidelines for faulty process. So why add another several Council 
meeting cycles to the process by requiring the council to first vote on a 
public comment period (and maybe push the vote off by another council meeting 
cycle as is the practice with nearly every vote these days), and then vote on 
sending the comment back to the PPSC.  Asking the council to decide if another 
review period is necessary could add as much as 12 weeks to the process.  If we 
in the PPSC think it needs another comment period, then we should be the ones 
to just request it.

So yes, "just to be clear" I am against recommending to the council that it 
send this out for public comment.  To repeat:

- i am not convinced it is necessary
- i think it add up to 3 months to the process in the asking in addition to  
the month of review
- if it is necessary then we should be the ones to do it.

Additionally I do not believe we have taken a proper decision on this issue at 
this point.

With best regards,


a.





On 13 Dec 2010, at 10:34, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> 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
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>