RE: [council] Proposed amendment to OSC & PPSC motion

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I appreciate the constructive dialog on this.  My personal opinion is that 
ending either steering committee at this time would draw the GNSO Improvements 
process out longer.

Although we may not like the results of some of the OSC procedural changes 
approved so far, we as Councilors have as much responsibility for that as the 
OSC and the GCOT because we approved them.  Also, when we have gone back to the 
OSC and GCOT with after-the-fact concerns, they have been very responsive.  I 
firmly believe that will be the case on the latest concerns.  Moreover, if 
there is interest in getting some new blood in the process, it has been stated 
several times that new participants in the GCOT are welcome.

Chuck

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 10:17 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Jeff Neuman
Subject: RE: [council] Proposed amendment to OSC & PPSC motion

 

Thanks, Jeff - I for one definitely appreciate the insight from you and did not 
in any way mean to undermine or downplay the complexity of the task or the hard 
work that the PDP team and, indeed, the other teams and committees, undertook. 
The reason why these motions and amendments are being circulated now are, I 
believe, two-fold; first, for a motion (and thus its context and content) to be 
discussed at the upcoming Council meeting, it has to be submitted 8 days ahead 
of that meeting. Secondly, I think that some Councilors (myself included) would 
like to prevent any further drawing out of the GNSO Improvements process. 

 

I had tried to craft language that would allow those teams whose work remains 
ongoing - particularly the PDP work team - to complete their work without 
worrying about re-chartering or other interference. At the same time, and given 
that some of the other teams have completed their tasks, I didn't see a reason 
to extend the PPSC and OSC charters, and certainly not without first knowing 
what else remains to be done from each committee and team.

 

Your idea to separate the two committees may well be the way to go. For now, 
I'm hoping that the motions will spur discussion and, hopefully, decisive but 
correct and appropriate steps being taken by the Council in its managerial role.

 

I hope this clarifies.

 

Thanks and cheers

Mary 

 

Mary W S Wong

Professor of Law

Chair, Graduate IP Programs

UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: 
http://ssrn.com/author=437584

>>> 

From: 

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

To:

Mary Wong <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Date: 

11/30/2010 10:02 PM

Subject: 

RE: [council] Proposed amendment to OSC & PPSC motion

All,

I have been watching the e-mails go by and up and am not technically a member 
of the Council yet until this weekend when I start as an alternate for Caroline 
Greer and then after next week I become a permanent council member on behalf of 
the Registries.   I would like to ask that before the Council considers a 
motion grouping the PPSC and OSC together that it takes the time this weekend 
to learn about what these groups are doing.  The OSC and PPSC are in very 
different positions right now.  As you know, the PPSC is divided into two work 
teams, the Working Group Work Team and the PDP Work Team.  The Working Group 
Work Team has delivered its final report and hopefully by the time the Council 
meets formally next week, the Working Group Work Team will be ready to deliver 
that report (as modified by the PPSC) to the Council.

With respect to the PDP Work Team, there is a lot more work to go.  The entire 
PDP process, from beginning (“raising an issue”) to end (“Board approval of a 
PDP, review of the PDP and the PDP process, etc.) is incredibly complex.  The 
PDP Work Team distributed a 150 page initial report prior to Brussels.  Very 
few Councilors that I have asked have read that report.   The PDP Work Team has 
reviewed extensive public comment and is addressing both issues that were left 
over and other new ones raised.  We have a “draft final report” we are 
reviewing now, with the goal of getting that out to the community early in 
2011.  I cannot stress how hard some of the members of the PDP Work Team are 
working and how committed they are to completing their task. 

With respect to the PPSC, I do not see a need to for the current motions being 
circulated and am a little concerned that the motions are coming not from the 
Council Liaisons or even members of the Steering Committees that are on the 
Council, but rather are coming from those that may not have not been that 
involved in the process at all.  In fact, with all due respect to the Council 
Liaisons, the PPSC Council Liaison has not attended a PPSC meeting in months 
(if at all).  Come to think of it, who is the Council Liaison to the PPSC?  

My personal view (and not as Chair of the PPSC or even as a gTLD Registry rep) 
is that this motion is too premature.  Lets discuss the issues raised at this 
meeting and worry about a motion (if one is necessary) at the next meeting.  

As the chair of the PPSC, I am happy to answer any questions you all have.

 

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-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 9:44 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] Proposed amendment to OSC & PPSC motion

 

Hello everyone,

 

In view of the additional information supplied by Julie, Liz and Philip, but 
considering also Wendy's and others' points relating to the workability of the 
current GNSO processes, I hereby propose the following amendment to Wendy's 
motion. Fundamentally, I believe it's time, and necessary, for the Council now 
to assume direct responsibility for reviewing the deliverables from the PPSC 
and OSC as well as the respective work teams. In this, the Council should be 
assisted by the Standing Committee that was supposed to have been formed some 
time ago. 

 

Of course, this would not preclude either the Council or the Standing Committee 
from consulting the teams and committees that drafted and reviewed the original 
language and processes; it's just that - with the amount of projects we are 
facing and the concerns already expressed over both the Council's role and the 
workability of the new GNSO rules and procedures, the seemingly-endless rounds 
of discussion, interpretation, delegation, referral and redrafting has to stop 
somewhere and that should be the Council.

 

So, here goes - keeping the original WHEREAS clauses, I suggest the following 
RESOLVED clauses to the OSC and PPSC charter motion. I hope Wendy will consider 
it friendly.

 

"RESOLVED, the Council acknowledges and thanks the OSC, the PPSC and the five 
community work teams for their hard work; and directs each steering committee 
and applicable work team chair to identify for the Council any remaining 
targets and benchmarks for their respective work by no later than 19 January 
2011, with a view toward final delivery to the Council of any remaining work 
items so identified by no later than the San Francisco meeting.

FURTHER RESOLVED, a Standing Committee to monitor implementation of GNSO 
Improvements shall be established no later than 19 January 2011. The Standing 
Committee will work with the Council to review and, if necessary, convene 
relevant work teams to refine and streamline, the effectiveness of GNSO 
Improvements on an ongoing basis."

 

Thanks and cheers

Mary 

 

 

 

Mary W S Wong

Professor of Law

Chair, Graduate IP Programs

UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: 
http://ssrn.com/author=437584

 

 

As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the 
University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire 
School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow 
the convention: firstname.lastname@xxxxxxxxxxx. For more information on the 
University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu 
<http://law.unh.edu>  

 

 

As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the 
University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire 
School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow 
the convention: firstname.lastname@xxxxxxxxxxx. For more information on the 
University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu 
<http://law.unh.edu>