Re: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Quick notes on current Draft final report

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Thanks for your comment and I appreciate the need for you to state it.

Even though I am not a lawyer, I expect that it is those documents  
you mentioned and their interpretation by the legal system (however,  
someone might state that in proper legalese) that would provide the  
ultimate judgement of validity if someone where to take the question  
to that point.  In place of that, we have only the decision and  
confirmation  of the council, the behavior of the the TF members and  
any guidance given by the legal staff for making a determination.   
This was my reason for wanting the guidance of the council and the  
behavior of the TF members included in the description.

thanks again,

a.


On 7 mar 2007, at 08.55, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> Avri,
>
> On 1.7, I offer no opinion on the text that is written.  I just wanted
> to address your comment that:
>
> " as opposed to the fact that the rest of the TF enthusiastically
> supported the validity of  the ToR.."
>
> For the record, as previously stated, a question of the validity of  
> the
> PDP and the Terms of Reference is governed by existing contract and  
> the
> current ICANN bylaws and not the opinion of the rest of the Task  
> Force.
>
>
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services  & Business Development
>
> NeuStar, Inc.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-pdp-pcceg-feb06@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 8:37 AM
> To: Liz Williams
> Cc: PDPfeb06
> Subject: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Quick notes on current Draft final report
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks Liz for the report.  I have quickly gone through the first
> part, though not the annexes in detail. Here are my notes.
>
> 1.3 - Not sure this is true.  as i read the rules, if the council has
> appointed someone to the TF with a vote, they have a vote.  And in
> fact it is an equal vote to the others on the the TF - not the
> devalued vote as has been the practice in the TF. I do agree that
> this was the process the TF worked under - which i believe was also a
> valid process.
>
> 1.4 - The definition we used included noncom voters - strong support
> = 4 or more  constituencies plus some nomcom support, support = 3
> constituencies plus some nomcom support.
>
> 1.7 - I don't think this satisfies the requirement to indicate that
> the rest of the constituencies and nomcom members did not accept the
> RyC position.  Also I thought there was supposed to be a statement
> indicating that the council had reinforced the validity of the TF and
> its ToR after the RyC issue was originally raised.  The way this is
> currently written, it looks like the RyC view predominated and the
> rest of the TF just went through the motions as opposed to the fact
> that the rest of the TF enthusiastically supported the validity of
> the ToR.
>
> 1.8 - Not sure if the reference to interim chair is a hold over from
> the past - replacement chair might be better reference.
>
> 1-9 - Not sure what value this table serves in the beginning of the
> document when the ToR hasn't even been introduced yet.  Certainly a
> useful annex.
>
> 2-1  I think it should use the language introduce earlier - i.e.
> Strong support is 4+nomcom or more.  If we are going to use the
> language of majority, would that not be super-majority for 1a1,2, 4a/
> b, 5, 6  and majorityt 1a3, 3a1, and 3b1?
>
> 7-6 you still have a note: Add in "individual participant views".
>
> In terms of the voting chart in the annex, the text of each of the
> items being voted on should be included in the annex so that it makes
> sense as a reference - it is difficult to tell what corresponds to
> the explanations in the main part of the document.
>
> thanks again
>
> a.