RE: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG

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

That makes sense in my opinion Tim.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 8:25 AM
> To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder
> Cc: Jeff Neuman; GNSO Council
> Subject: RE: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG
> 
> 
> 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------
> >
> >
>