RE: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

This is not about whether Council motions should be put out for public
comment, or even about setting that precendent. Normal procedures for
PDPs or WTs is that some opportunity for public comment/input is
provided along the way - constituency statements, initial reports, etc.

In this case that was not provided for, and I take Jeff's suggestion
that the motion go out for public comment as simply a way to resolve the
concern, or what he feels is missing, in this particular case. 

In our consideration of this I think it would help if Staff can let us
know how this recommendation would likely be handled if we approve the
motion as is. Will the recommendation make it into DAGv4? If so, and it
is specifically spelled out as one of the changes in the announcement of
DAGv4, then that might resolve the concern with providing an opportunity
for public comment. One way or the other though, this change certainly
should not find its way in the final applicant guidebook without an
opportunity for the community to review and comment on it.


Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG
From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, May 20, 2010 3:46 am
To: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jeff Neuman <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>


I agree this is something we should discuss. I also have concerns, but
those are more to do with my own understanding of the way the Council
should act, and the challenges to that that Jeff's note brings.

Of particular interest to me is his assertion that Council should put
out this motion for public comment. I do not recall ever seeing
Council's ability to act on properly submitted motions (such as this
one) without first putting said motion out for public comment questioned
in this way. If I understand Jeff's meaning correctly, he is suggesting
that Council's decision-making process be slowed down to include, at
every step, the possibility for public comment. While I understand the
rationale, I think that Council is tasked with leading the GNSO and that
doing what I understand Jeff to be suggesting would render Council
ineffective in doing so.

There is plenty of opportunity for community input built into the
Council procedures as is, I don't think that our motions should be put
out to public comment before we vote on them. What would that mean to
our timelines anyway? That we would submit a motion, then wait 30 days
for public comments, then have staff process them, then read the process
report, then discuss the motion again...?

I respect Jeff's opinion greatly, and think that he is able to provide
the Council with input that we should take on board, not least because
of his heavy involvement in the GNSO restructure effort which has
undoubtedly given him a great deal of clarity of vision into our
processes. But I am wary of what I understand Jeff to be suggesting
here, because I think it will effectively stall Council function.

I am copying Jeff so that he may correct me if I have understood what he
is suggesting incorrectly.

Stéphane

Le 20 mai 2010 à 09:33, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 
> I've not yet process concerns. But we should try to solve the procedural 
> issue in general. 
> 
> 
> Regards
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im 
> Auftrag von Rosette, Kristina
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 19. Mai 2010 22:00
> An: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Betreff: Re: [council] Motion from IDNG
> 
> 
> It is now. 
> 
> I have similar process concerns. I also have substance concerns.
> 
> 
> ------Original Message------
> From: Tim Ruiz
> To: GNSO Council
> ReplyTo: Tim Ruiz
> Subject: RE: [council] Motion from IDNG
> Sent: May 19, 2010 3:52 PM
> 
> 
> Chuck,
> 
> Some of the Councilors, including myself, were copied on a letter from
> Jeff Neuman to the Council regarding this motion. Is that going to
> posted to the Council list? I'd like an opportunity to discuss it and
> understand others' thoughts on it.
> 
> Tim 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [council] Motion from IDNG
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, May 19, 2010 2:09 pm
> To: "Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> I agree with Avri's response.
> 
> Chuck
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
>> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 12:50 PM
>> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [council] Motion from IDNG
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Kristina,
>> Forwarding a note from Avri who helped write the document:
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Edmon -
>> 
>> On 19 May 2010, at 10:12, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
>> 
>>> Is the exception extended to apply only where (a) the same entity is
>> the
>> applicant for both strings; or (b) there is a unity of source for the
>> strings by virtue of a corporate relationship or legal agreement
>> between the
>> applicant and the operator of the prior string?
>> 
>> 
>> My single person opinion.
>> 
>> I think that is pretty much up to the determination of the extended
>> panel.
>> Obviously the second example shows that it does not need to be the same
>> entity. It would be up to the panel to figure out whether
> 
> ------Original Message Truncated------
> 
>