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

[Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm hoping for further discussion on the list before considering
possibly-friendly amendments.

As I see it, we've heard three options:
* extend the PPSC and OSC charters through San Francisco (Chuck)
* permit the charters to terminate as scheduled (Wendy)
* request concluding reports and create a Standing Committee (Mary)


Mary, would your proposed first RESOLVED still terminate the PPSC and
OSC charters in Cartagena?

I support creating a Standing Committee, and appreciate Jeff's and
others' suggestions on how to make that work effectively. Unless that
would change anyone's pro vote to con, I would take Mary's second
RESOLVED as friendly.

Thanks,
--Wendy

On 12/01/2010 02:43 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> Thanks Mary.  I also thought of combining the motions but for now let’s see 
> where the discussion goes.
> 
> Chuck
> 
>  
> 
> 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
> 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
> 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>  
> 


-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx +1 914-374-0613
Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
http://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/donate        <<        please donate!
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/