FW: [REGYCON] Fw: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG

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

Here's Jeff's response to Stephane's comments.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: GNSO Registry Constituency Planning [mailto:REGYCON-L@NIC.MUSEUM] On 
Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 7:27 AM
To: REGYCON-L@NIC.MUSEUM
Subject: [REGYCON] Fw: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG

Caroline,

Can you make sure this gets posted to Council list as well.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx



----- Original Message -----
From: Neuman, Jeff
To: 'stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx' <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>; 
'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx' <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thu May 20 07:25:43 2010
Subject: Re: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG

Thanks Stephane.  To clarify.  Gnso council motions should not be put out for 
public comment.

However, most of the the time, the substance of what is behind a motion 
regarding policy has been put out for public comment PRIOR to the council ever 
crafting a motion in the first place.  Normally that is done by a working 
group, work team, etc.

Here, the substance was never put out for comment and therefore because the 
substance of the motion was never put out to the public for input, it needs to 
be put out now.

My point is that we should have never gotten to this point where the council is 
looking at a motion based on on a policy that was never commented on by the 
public.

I hope that helps.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx



----- Original Message -----
From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
To: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Thu May 20 04:46:05 2010
Subject: Re: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG

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   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------
>
>