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

[Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]

Stéphane,

I will defer to Marika with respect to your question.  She has been
supporting the Work Team and is more familiar with its work than I am.  I
was responding with a reference as to how the work has proceeded in the OSC,
but the parallels may not be the same.

Thanks,
Julie


On 12/14/10 6:01 PM, "Stephane Van Gelder" <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> Thanks Marika and Julie for the answers. I understand Avri's point to be that
> comment periods are perhaps not necessary at every step of the way. Is that
> something you agree with? For example, does this latest version of the WG
> guidelines need to be put out for public comment?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Stéphane Van Gelder
> Directeur général / General manager
>
> INDOM.com Noms de domaine / Domain names
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> Le 14 déc. 2010 à 17:36, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
>
>>
>> Hi Avri,
>>
>> It's my recollection that we have sent each change to the GNSO Operating
>> Procedures (the GCOT recommendations) out for Public Comment following a
>> motion to do so by the Council, prior to acceptance by the Council.  There
>> have been two sets of changes.  The original major change and the changes
>> that included absences, proxies, and the SOI/DOI procedures.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Julie
>>
>>
>> On 12/14/10 11:04 AM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'll check with my colleagues as I don't know the answer, but just to note
>>> that in addition to the changes made to the GNSO WG Guidelines in response
>>> to
>>> the public comments received, further changes were made following the input
>>> of
>>> the PPSC which has resulted in the latest version which is now out for a
>>> consensus call.
>>>
>>> With best regards,
>>>
>>> Marika
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: owner-gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> To: gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Sent: Tue Dec 14 07:52:52 2010
>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc] Revised Language for 2 outstanding issues in
>>> Working
>>> Group Guidelines
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 ³full consensus of the members² 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, t!
>>> h!
>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>