ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[gnso-ppsc] FW: Final Working Group Guidelines

  • To: "gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-ppsc] FW: Final Working Group Guidelines
  • From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 05:53:28 -0500

Dear PPSC,

As you all know the Final Working Group Guidelines were submitted to the 
Council at the end of last year and then put out for public comment by the 
Council.  Two comments were received by the community during the comment period 
and an additional comment from the ALAC was also received shortly thereafter.  
Marika posted a summary of the 2 comments that were received by the GNSO 
Council (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-wg-guidelines/msg00002.html).  I 
have cut and pasted the relevant portions below from the summary.

During the Council meeting, it was proposed that I relay the comments back to 
the PPSC with a goal of finalizing the report so the Council can vote to 
approve it in San Francisco.  My proposal during the Council call last week was 
to make clarifications in the report where we could, but refer any of the 
substantive policy issues to the "Standing Committee" that is being established 
by the GNSO Council.

In the opinion of the Chair and the Vice Chair (J. Scott) of this WG, the 
comments received by the Registries were for the most part clarifications and 
small wording changes which do not raise substantive issues.  The issues raised 
by Avri, however, I believe fall into the category of new substantive issues 
relating to the role of the Working Group Chair in relation to the Council.  I 
have discussed this with Avri as well and she concurs.  Therefore, my 
recommendation is to include Avri's comment as a minority opinion and refer the 
issue she has raised to the Standing Committee.

With respect to the comments from the ALAC, I have asked Alan to provide a 
sentence to add to the participation section (to which their comment is 
related).    With that in mind, I asked Marika to update the final report which 
is attached.   We still need to include Avri's comment as a minority statement 
and the ALAC statement.  If I hear of no objections by March 7th, this will be 
referred to the Council on March 8th (the deadline for all final motions for 
the Council).

Please let me know as soon as possible your thoughts.  Thank you for all your 
hard work on this.  We are nearing the finish line!


I.                    COMMENTS and CONTRIBUTIONS

Two (2) community submissions have been made to the public comment forum. The 
contributors are listed below in alphabetical order (with relevant initials 
noted in parentheses):

Avri Doria (AD)
gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group by David Maher (RySG)

II.                  SUMMARY & ANALYSIS

The comment from AD relates to the role of the Chair of the WG. In her view, it 
is not compatible to be a Council member and Chair of a Working Group and she 
therefore recommends that 'a paragraph be added to the Chair Role description 
indicating that except in emergencies, and only as an interim measure, 
Chartering Organization members, i.e. GNSO Council members, may not serve as a 
WG Chair'.

The RySG expresses its support for a number of the elements of the proposed 
Working Group Guidelines, but also suggests a number of edits and 
clarifications. The RySG's proposed edits are:
*         The sections on the Disclosures of Interest will need to be updated 
to reflect any changes the GNSO Council is likely to adopt;
*         Modify the last two sentences of the first paragraph in Section to read 'If there are any objections to the selected Chair, the CO will 
conduct a vote to establish whether there is sufficient support for the 
selected Chair according to the voting procedures of the CO. If not, the 
Working Group will be requested to consider their choice for Chair and return 
to the CO with a new proposal' (Proposed modifications are underlined).
The RySG's proposed areas of clarification are:
*         The description of the Liaison role - The RySG asks whether the 
current wording means that 'the liaison may not participate as a representative 
of his/her SG or constituency or as an individual participant separate from 
his/her liaison role'? It proposes to modify the language to say 'The liaison 
is expected to fulfill the liaison role in a neutral manner' (proposed 
modifications are underlined).
*         In relation to possible face-to-face meetings, the RySG suggests that 
'it might be helpful to insert a footnote that briefly points out that the 
ICANN budget is finalized and approved in advance of each fiscal year so if 
general funds are not available for a need like this, it may be difficult to 
obtain funding'.
*         In relation to status updates in section, the RySG suggests 
that 'it might be a good idea to insert a footnote that explains the Board 
policy requiring 15 working day advance posting of documents that will be 
considered during ICANN international public meetings'.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166
Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / 
jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>  / 
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.

Attachment: GNSO WG Guidelines - Updated 23 February 2011.doc
Description: GNSO WG Guidelines - Updated 23 February 2011.doc

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy