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

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

If I can just respond to some of these points:
I do not view it to be helpful to the policy process for the Council to pass a 
resolution essentially telling policy groups to “hurry up and finish your work 
because we are tired of this being on our agenda”.  I know those are not the 
words being used, but that is the message being sent.  Do Council members 
believe that simply because it passes a resolution, those that have already 
been participating will all of a sudden move that much more quickly?  The real 
issue, at least with respect to the PPSC, is the clear lack of participation by 
a number of constituencies/stakeholder groups in the process, whether at the 
Work Team or Steering Committee level. How about a resolution whereby each 
Councilor agrees to ensure that its representatives actually show up for calls, 
respond to e-mails and actually participate?  As someone who has personally 
approached the Council on several occasions begging you all to you back to your 
groups to get participation to little or no avail, this motion is 
counter-productive at best.   I feel the same frustration everyone on the 
council felt when the ICANN Board told the Council it needed to move faster to 
solve the issues with respect to vertical integration.  It was poor management 
skills of the ICANN Board to order that of the council, and it would be the 
same poor management skills of the Council to do the same to the Steering 
Committees and Work Teams.
Lets not worry about resolutions at this point and coming up with top-down 
solutions that are not well thought out.  Lets ask what these groups need to 
complete their jobs and give the groups what they need to do their work.  As 
for the PDP Work Team, here is what I believe we need:
1.  Participation by Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies:   The PDP Work Team has 
several people that participate, but there are entire constituencies that have 
been completely absent for months (or even years at this point).  How about a 
commitment from Councilors to remove those from their 
constituencies/stakeholder groups that are on the Work Team that do not 
participate and replacing them with those that have the time and resources to 
do so.
2.  Encouraging discussions within their own constituencies and stakeholder 
groups of the substance of the proposed recommendations and ensuring reps to 
the Work Teams have the feedback they need to contribute; and
3.  Appointing a Council Liaison that is able to attend meetings and 
participate.
If we can accomplish 1-3 above, then we will be able to meet our deadlines and 
hopefully not have to worry about whether the PPSC or other standing committee 
adds another level of bureaucracy or not.

Those are just my personal thoughts.





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: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 12:56 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Proposed amendment to OSC & PPSC motion

Thanks for the comments, Chuck and Tim. Hopefully the following clarification 
will help matters:

(1) I actually borrowed (er, copied :) the first resolve clause from Chuck's 
original motion, as I agree it's important to wrap up the improvements process 
and we'll need clear and specific indicators of what remains due and when in 
order to do so. If it would have been more appropriate to propose my amendment 
as an amendment to Chuck's rather than Wendy's motion, I can perhaps do that 
(if it's within the rules to do so).

(2) The intent was NOT to add an extra layer; rather, it was to reduce 
duplication and delay by having the Council take over from where the OSC and 
PPSC are now. My reasons for this include (i) the need to wrap things up as 
mentioned already; (ii) the risk of further delay if we keep referring things 
back to the OSC/PPSC to then pass on to individual work teams, for funneling 
back to us; (iii) the resulting inefficiencies once the Council discovers 
certain procedures or recommendations to be unworkable, thus resulting in yet 
another go-around; and (iv) the need for the Council to step in and exercise a 
true managerial function, which includes substantive review.

(3) On that last point, there had been consensus around creating a Standing 
Committee that would NOT be the equivalent of the OSC and/or PPSC. The Standing 
Committee would (i) assist the Council in its review work; (ii) review at the 
Council's request existing processes (as it would not be appropriate for those 
who drafted the procedures to be reviewing themselves!); and (iii) if necessary 
and/or requested by the Council, convene new drafting/work teams should 
subsequent drafting or other work be necessary in the fullness of time.

As to the question of whether the Council will be less busy and/or pay more 
critical attention now than perhaps some of us did before, I hope so. The 
incidents we have already raised must mean we need to, and I believe my 
amendments will clarify for the community that this is indeed what we are 
prepared to do.

Thanks,
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<mailto: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:

"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

To:

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

Date:

12/1/2010 10:04 AM

Subject:

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

I want to point out that the motion I made to extend the PPSC and OSC charters 
was very similar to the first resolve of Mary’s proposed amendment with regard 
to timing.  It also only extended the charters to the San Francisco meeting and 
that was done consciously by me because I also believe that we need to wrap up 
the GNSO improvements work quickly.  And I personally support directing “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”.
Recognizing that the RySG has not discussed this yet, I have concerns about the 
second resolve because I like Tim believe it will result in duplication of 
effort and inefficiency.  We have three layers now; we would have four then.  
Finally, asking the Council to be more directly involved seems to me something 
that should already be the case.  The Council approved the procedures that we 
are now so concerned about.  The excuse is that we were all too busy.  Is that 
going to change in the next few months?
Chuck
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<mailto: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>