RE: [gnso-ppsc] FW: Final Working Group Guidelines

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

No objection to this approach.

Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [gnso-ppsc] FW: Final Working Group Guidelines
> From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, March 01, 2011 4:53 am
> To: "gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 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 &#8220;Standing Committee&#8221; 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&#8217;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&#8217;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 &#8216;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&#8217;.
>  
> 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&#8217;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 
> 2.1.4.2 to read &#8216;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&#8217; (Proposed modifications are underlined).
> The RySG&#8217;s proposed areas of clarification are:
> ·         The description of the Liaison role &#8211; The RySG asks whether 
> the current wording means that &#8216;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&#8217;? It proposes to modify the language 
> to say &#8216;The liaison is expected to fulfill the liaison role in a 
> neutral manner&#8217; (proposed modifications are underlined).
> ·         In relation to possible face-to-face meetings, the RySG suggests 
> that &#8216;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&#8217;.
> ·         In relation to status updates in section 6.2.4.2, the RySG suggests 
> that &#8216;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&#8217;.
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 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  / 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.
>  
> 
>