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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Thanks Marika,

A question, have the GCOT recommendations been so treated after each one of the 
changes was made?  I would think that those changes were indeed substantive, 
and I just do not remember if that practice was followed after each round trip. 
 Has this been the case after every comment resolution phase?  I just do not 
remember.

Just as a reminder, it was not my intention to say that public comments were 
never needed, but that a new public comment was not necessarily needed after 
comment resolution.  

a.


On 14 Dec 2010, at 10:45, Marika Konings wrote:

> I've checked with my colleagues and this is the process that has been 
> followed for the different OSC work products:
> 
> The recommendations were sent to the GNSO Council from the OSC along with a 
> draft motion whereby
> the Council would ask that they be put out for public comment for at least 30 
> days.  The Council voted on the motion, the recommendations were posted
> for comment, and at the end of the comment period the Council would then vote 
> to approve the recommendations with another motion.
> 
> With best regards,
> 
> Marika
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: owner-gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tue Dec 14 02:17:37 2010
> Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc] Revised Language for 2 outstanding issues in Working 
> Group Guidelines
> 
> 
> It seems to me that what the Council needs is the PPSC's WG guidelines. We 
> also need to know if the proposed text has the PPSC's consensus or not.
> 
> Beyond that, it is up to the Council to determine if the text should be put 
> out for public comment or not. I would recommend that it be put out, but 
> would also appreciate staff's guidance on this.
> 
> However, before we look at whether this goes out for public comment or not, 
> the Council will first have to agree to the PPSC's recommendations for WG 
> guidelines. If recent events on some of the OSC's proposals are anything to 
> go by, the Council may send the text back to you guys to tweak parts of it.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> Le 13 déc. 2010 à 19:15, Avri Doria a écrit :
> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Works for me.  Proper accountable behavior is all I am asking for.
>> 
>> BTW, are we confident we know who the functioning members of the PPSC are?  
>> for the NCSg part, we are currently reviewing it, I am for example, the 2nd 
>> alternate, but have been the one who has been participating.  The NCSG is 
>> currently reviewing this and will let the powers that be know if we make any 
>> changes.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> On 13 Dec 2010, at 12:10, J. Scott Evans wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear Jeff and Avri:
>>> 
>>> May I make a suggestion?  I propose that we put the revised Guidelines out 
>>> to the full PPSC with a call for consensus.  We can also request a call for 
>>> consensus on how to handle the issue of further public comments.  It seems 
>>> to me that this would be far more efficient than a continued email debate 
>>> from to immutable forces.  ;-)
>>> 
>>> J. Scott
>>> 
>>> 
>>> j. scott evans - senior legal director, global brand and trademarks - 
>>> Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
>>> To: gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx
>>> Cc:
>>> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 8:12:47 AM
>>> 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, th!
> e!
>> n !
>>> 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
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>