Re: [council] Final Working Group Work Team Report & Motion

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry, I missed the second reference to a one-pager. This should read :


RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council recommends that a concise summary of the 
WG Guidelines be drafted by ICANN Staff, following approval of the GNSO Working 
Guidelines by the GNSO Council, in order to serve as a primer to the full 
document  for potential WG members. The summary should be approved by the PPSC 
before being submitted to the GNSO Council.

Stéphane

Le 11 janv. 2011 à 16:25, Stéphane Van Gelder a écrit :

> Thanks Jeff.
> 
> So how about this as the full additional Resolve:
> 
> RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council recommends that a concise summary of 
> the WG Guidelines be drafted by ICANN Staff, following approval of the GNSO 
> Working Guidelines by the GNSO Council, in order to serve as a primer to the 
> full document  for potential WG members. The one-page summary should be 
> approved by the PPSC before being submitted to the GNSO Council.
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> Le 11 janv. 2011 à 16:18, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
> 
>> I believe that this would be friendly if we can remove the word "one-page" 
>> and replace with something like "short and concise.". Totally understand and 
>> agree with the concept, but the words "one-page" may be too limiting. If you 
>> can accept that, I will gladly accept the rest as friendly.
>> 
>> Thanks. 
>> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
>> Vice President, Law & Policy 
>> NeuStar, Inc. 
>> Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx 
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] 
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 09:58 AM
>> To: Neuman, Jeff 
>> Cc: 'GNSO Council' <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
>> Subject: Re: [council] Final Working Group Work Team Report & Motion 
>>  
>> Thanks Jeff.
>> 
>> That being the case, I would like to propose an amendment to your motion.
>> 
>> I would propose that a 3rd resolved clause be added stating the following:
>> 
>> RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council recommends that a one-page summary of 
>> the WG Guidelines be drafted by ICANN Staff in order to serve as a primer to 
>> the full document  for potential WG members. The one-page summary should be 
>> approved by the PPSC before being submitted to the GNSO Council.
>> 
>> I hope you can consider this amendment friendly.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Stéphane
>> 
>> Le 10 janv. 2011 à 17:32, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
>> 
>>> Stephane,
>>>  
>>> I think you have some good points and I completely understand the notion of 
>>> having too much to read for what seems like fairly simple concepts.  The 
>>> PPSC did not discuss this issue and I am not sure to what extent the WG-WT 
>>> discussed. 
>>>  
>>> However, I believe that once the principles are approved by the Council, 
>>> that we (the Council) can direct the staff to draft up a shorter summary 
>>> (with encouragement to read the full report).  I suppose the PPSC could 
>>> review the summary to make sure it is in line with the final report.  We 
>>> could also when it comes time to approve the principles in our motion 
>>> direct that staff hold a short session at the start of every Working Group 
>>> to educate Working Group members on the basics for those interested.
>>>  
>>> Hope that helps.
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>>  
>>> 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: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] 
>>> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 10:17 AM
>>> To: Neuman, Jeff
>>> Cc: 'GNSO Council'
>>> Subject: Re: [council] Final Working Group Work Team Report & Motion
>>>  
>>> Hi Jeff,
>>>  
>>> Because these WG guidelines are intended for use by WG members (see 1.3) I 
>>> find it surprising that they would be expected to read a 35 page document 
>>> in order to get a grasp on the way ICANN recommends they should set-up and 
>>> run their WG.
>>>  
>>> I do not find it realistic to expect volunteer members of a WG, not all of 
>>> which would necessarily be very clued on up ICANN processes (nor should we 
>>> expect them to be if we are to encourage broader community participation), 
>>> to have to tackle such a report. As such, I fear that what we will end up 
>>> seeing happening is that people do not read these guidelines and do not 
>>> profit from them.
>>>  
>>> With regards to this, has the idea of producing a one-page summary of the 
>>> guidelines been discussed by the PPSC at all? The idea would be to have 
>>> some kind of WG guideline "primer" which could help people understand what 
>>> is expected of them as part of a GNSO WG.
>>>  
>>> Thanks,
>>>  
>>> Stéphane
>>> 
>>> Le 2 janv. 2011 à 03:53, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
>>> 
>>> 
>>> All,
>>>  
>>> Please find enclosed the Final Working Group Work Team report as approved 
>>> by the Policy Process Steering Committee.   I am also attaching for the 
>>> Council’s review a redline of the report that compares the Final to the 
>>> Interim Report that came out prior to the Brussels meeting.  The changes 
>>> reflect public comments to the Interim report plus changes made as a result 
>>> of questions raised by the PPSC as addressed by the Working Group Work 
>>> Team.  All of the constituencies/Stakeholder Groups represented on the PPSC 
>>> approved the final report with the exception of the Business Constituency, 
>>> who did not vote.   The ALAC representative, who does not officially get a 
>>> vote, also expressed his approval of the report.
>>>  
>>> A non-official informal poll was taken within the PPSC as to whether we 
>>> should recommend to the Council that it put the final report out for public 
>>> comment before review/approval given the changes that have been made since 
>>> the last time the report was out for comment.  The Registries, IPC and ISP 
>>> representatives believe the GNSO Council should place the report out for 
>>> comment; the Registrars did not think it was necessary, but did not object; 
>>> the BC did not vote; and the NCSG opposed making this recommendation to the 
>>> Council (believing that the Council should decide for itself what it wanted 
>>> to do).
>>>  
>>> The motion I present below acknowledges receipt of report and requests that 
>>> the report go out for comment (should the council elect to put it out for 
>>> comment).
>>>  
>>> I would be happy to answer any questions.
>>>  
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  
>>> Motion to Acknowledge the Receipt of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and 
>>> Initiate a Public Comment Period
>>>  
>>> WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework (see 
>>> GNSO Council Improvements Implementation Plan; 
>>> http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implementation-plan-16oct08.pdf)
>>>  for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by 
>>> the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008 
>>> (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182 
>>> <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm>);
>>>  
>>> WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two 
>>> Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and thePolicy 
>>> Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of 
>>> five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to 
>>> implement the improvements;
>>>  
>>> WHEREAS, the PPSC established two work teams, including the Working Group 
>>> Work Team (WG WT), which was chartered to develop a new GNSO Working Group 
>>> Model that improves inclusiveness, improves effectiveness, and improves 
>>> efficiency;
>>>  
>>> WHEREAS, the WG WT completed its deliberations and forwarded the GNSO 
>>> Working Group Guidelines to the PPSC on 1 November 2010;
>>>  
>>> WHEREAS, the PPSC reviewed and approved the GNSO Working Group Guidelines 
>>> on 20 December 2010 [includelink to GNSO Working Group Guidelines once 
>>> posted]
>>> and forwarded the report to the GNSO Council on 30 December 2010;
>>>  
>>> NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
>>>  
>>> RESOLVED that the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of the GNSO Working 
>>> Group Guidelines as delivered by the PPSC and directs ICANN Staff to 
>>> commence a twenty-one (21) day public comment period on the GNSO Working 
>>> Group Guidelines.
>>>  
>>> RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council shall take action on the GNSO 
>>> Working Group Guidelines as soon as possible after the end of the public 
>>> comment period.
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
>>> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
>>> 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166
>>> Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / 
>>> jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx  / www.neustar.biz     
>>> 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.
>>>  
>>> <GNSO WG Guidelines - FINAL - 10 December 
>>> 2010.pdf><GNSO_WG_Guideline_Revised_Final_Redline_10 December 2010.doc>
>>>  
>> 
>