RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the Council

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>From my own personal standpoint, I agree with Tim.  It frankly surprises me 
>how we (the ICANN Community) are consistently making up the rules as we go and 
>that is not just a commentary on this group or the Council, but starts at the 
>top.   I think Tim and I are saying the same thing, which is that we are NOT 
>saying the board can't read it or that it shouldn't read it.  In fact, many of 
>them may have already seen it and I am sure ICANN staff will send it to them 
>on their mailing list as well to read for their retreat.   I am sure the ICANN 
>staff would also include it in the Board's briefing papers regardless of 
>whether or not the GNSO passed a motion.  It should also not go unnoticed that 
>ICANN staff is unwilling into put into the motion that the ICANN Board 
>requested this input for their retreat.  It is clear to most in the VI Group 
>that this information was requested (although NOT in a board motion).  That 
>was consistently the message from the Chairs of this group and I know from 
>personal conversations with some Board members that this is the case as well.

The fact that ICANN staff does not want to see this in a GNSO Council should be 
a signal to those on the Council and the Community how seriously the 
Staff/Board takes the precise wording of motions and perhaps we (as a community 
and the Council) should do the same.

The ONLY thing we are saying is that it is NOT the role of the GNSO Council to 
take any sort of a formal action with an incomplete PDP.  Nothing is preventing 
the GNSO from presenting a status report on the activities of any or all of its 
work groups.  Just like the GNSO Council does not pass a resolution every time 
the GNSO Chair gives a status report at a face to face ICANN meeting, the GNSO 
Council should not have to pass a formal resolution to give this status report.



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.


From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 7:31 AM
To: Roberto Gaetano; owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the Council

The point is the interim report is not forwarded to the board. You can make fun 
of me if you like, but the PDP serves an important purpose and the process 
should be followed.

That doesn't mean they cannot read the interim report and they can certainly 
discuss it during their retreat.

Tim

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

________________________________
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 07:22:40 +0200
To: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the Council

To include little footnotes is not explicitely part of the charter of this WG 
and not provided for in the PDP :)
R.


________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
Sent: Thursday, 19 August 2010 00:18
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the Council
Hello All,

Perhaps what is ever communication is sent to the Board could include a little 
footnote that there was even a lack of consensus within the VI on how to 
forward the report to the Board :)

Best regards,

Michael

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 6:07 PM
To: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx; Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc: Neuman,Jeff; avri@xxxxxxx; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the Council

So we shouldn't do anything that is not specifically provided for?  That would 
require the PDP process to include every conceivable action or require the 
Council to act on a motion if it is not specifically provided for.

Chuck

From: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 4:56 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc: Neuman,Jeff; avri@xxxxxxx; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the Council

Actually it's the other way around. Show me in the PDP process where taking 
action like this on an interim report is provided for. It isn't, and I think 
for good reason.

Tim

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

________________________________
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:21:50 -0400
To: <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Neuman,Jeff<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>; <avri@xxxxxxx>; 
<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the Council

I have looked at it very closely Tim, many times.  Please point me to anything 
in the Bylaws that supports your opinion.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 1:36 PM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc: Neuman,Jeff; 'avri@xxxxxxx'; 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the Council

In a word, no. Please review the PDP process in the bylaws.

Tim

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

________________________________
From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 19:18:08 +0200
To: <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Neuman,Jeff<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>; 'avri@xxxxxxx'<avri@xxxxxxx>; 
'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the Council

I understand that Tim. And as the entity that commissioned the VI WG, isn't the 
Council able to pass on information to the Board that has been officially sent 
to it by the WG?

Stéphane
Le 18 août 2010 à 18:34, tim@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

Stephane, that simply is not true. The VI is a formal PDP WG. There is a 
process to follow and Council is responsible for manging that process, not 
taking liberties with it.

Tim

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

________________________________
From: Stéphane Van Gelder 
<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 18:14:49 +0200
To: Tim Ruiz<tim@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Neuman,Jeff<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>; 
'avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:'avri@xxxxxxx>'<avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>>; 
'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>'<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the Council

I agree with Avri that it is the Council's prerogative to send information to 
the Board when it deems it necessary.

I agree with Jeff that the wording of the motion should make it clear that this 
is an interim report being sent for information purposes while the WG continues 
its work.

As such, the currently redrafted motion looks fine to me.

Stéphane
Le 17 août 2010 à 19:32, Tim Ruiz a écrit :

I agree with Jeff. And even if the Board requested that we do this, I would 
first want to clearly understand why it did so. It is not needed for the Board 
to review the interim report, so if they requested this then they have some 
other reason in mind.

Tim


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the Council
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Mon, August 16, 2010 7:24 pm
To: "'avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>'" <avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>>, 
"'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>'"
<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>>


Avri - I don't understand your arguments.

But, I do not believe that the Council should get in the habit of formally 
submitting interim reports to the Board. That is a formal action under the pdp 
process in the bylaws (the act of forwarding something to the board).

All I am asking as the insertion of the concept of this being sent in response 
to a board request and that this is not a finished product.

I really don't understand why you believe that is a controversial request.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>



----- Original Message -----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx> 
<owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>>
To: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx> 
<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Mon Aug 16 19:53:03 2010
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the Council


Hi,

But aren't you trying to establish a precedent that the GNSO Council may not 
send status updates to the Board when it thinks it should? I think that is a 
bad precedent.

Sending updates seems to me to fall well within the prerogatives of a manager 
of the process. they have the right, in fact responsibility, to communicate 
whatever they feel needs to be communicated as long as they don't mislead 
anyone about the status of a group or its efforts.

I recommend leaving the motion as is.

a.

They really appreciate the efforts of every member of the group? hmmm.

On 16 Aug 2010, at 19:23, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> Thanks Mikey. This is a lot better than the original. One thing I would like 
> to see here for purpose of posterity and so this does not establish bad 
> precedent is a WHEREAS clause the recognizes that this is being forwarded to 
> the Board in response to a request from the Board to do so (even if such 
> request was informal). You can add it to an already existing WHEREAS clause, 
> but it should be in there that this is not the GNSO Council doing this on its 
> own, but rather is in response to a Board request.
>
> I would also like to reword one of the resolutions to include the following 
> concept:
>
> RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Council hereby agrees to forward the Revised 
> Initial Report to the ICANN Board as a snapshot of the current state of the 
> ongoing deliberations of the VI Working Group with the understanding that the 
> VI Working Group will continue to work through these issues to attempt to 
> produce concrete recommendations in a final report.
>
> I am not wedded to the words, but rather would hope that the concept is 
> captured.
>
> 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.
>
>
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx> 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 7:02 PM
> To: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the Council
>
> hi all,
>
> Margie and i have revised the motion based on the conversation during today's 
> call. see if this works for you...
>
> Motion to Forward the Revised Initial Report on the Vertical Integration PDP 
> to the ICANN Board.
> Whereas, on 28 January 2010, the GNSO Council approved a policy development 
> process (PDP) on the topic of vertical integration between registries and 
> registrars;
> Whereas the VI Working Group has produced its Revised Initial Report and has 
> presented it to the GNSO Council on 18 August; and,
>
> Whereas, the GNSO Council recognizes that the Revised Initial Report does not 
> include any recommendations that have achieved a consensus within the VI 
> Working Group, and instead reflects the current state of the work of the VI 
> Working Group;
>
> Whereas, the GNSO Council has reviewed the Revised Initial Report, and 
> desires to forward the Revised Initial Report to the ICANN Board;
> NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
>
> RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council appreciates the hard work and tremendous 
> effort shown by each member of the VI PDP working group in developing the 
> Revised Initial Report on an expedited basis;
>
> RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Council hereby agrees to forward the Revised 
> Initial Report to the ICANN Board as a snapshot of the current state of the 
> ongoing deliberations of the VI Working Group;
> RESOLVED FURTHER, that this resolution is not an endorsement or approval by 
> the GNSO Council of the contents of the Revised Initial Report at this time;
>
> RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council directs Staff to make the appropriate 
> notifications to the ICANN Secretary and to the community.
>
> thanks,
>
> mikey
>
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone 651-647-6109
> fax 866-280-2356
> web http://www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com/>
> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
>