[gnso-ppsc] FW: Final Working Group Guidelines
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 22.214.171.124 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 126.96.36.199, 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> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ 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.
GNSO WG Guidelines - Updated 23 February 2011.doc