Re: Astoundingly off-topic [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised motion for the Council

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

just one note.  before beating up the staff, please check to see if a certain 
Junior Co-Chair asked the staff to steer away from that issue (as was the case 
here).  i do heartily wish we could get out of the habit of staff-bashing.

mikey


On Aug 19, 2010, at 7:15 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> 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 J
> 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 J
>  
> 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 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>
> Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 18:14:49 +0200
> To: Tim Ruiz<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 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>
> Date: Mon, August 16, 2010 7:24 pm
> To: "'avri@xxxxxxx'" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'"
> <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
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <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] 
> > On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
> > Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 7:02 PM
> > To: 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
> > handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, 
> > etc.)
> >
> 
>  
>  

- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     http://www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)