ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] Quick notes on current Draft final report
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 10:45:35 -0500


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,


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


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


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


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy