RE: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG

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

I forwarded it to the Council list.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 8:41 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Tim Ruiz; Stéphane_Van_Gelder; Rosette, Kristina;
> Caroline Greer
> Cc: GNSO Council
> Subject: RE: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG
> 
> Thanks Tim (and again, I cannot post to Council list)...so please pass
> on.
> 
> I agree with almost everything Tim said except for one item.  I believe
> that before the GNSO Council passes a motion to approve a
> recommendation, as Tim has said, it needs to have had an opportunity
> for public comment.  Although there may be a future comment period in
> the DAG on this, I do not believe that is a cure.  When the GNSO
> Council passes a motion to a approve a recommendation, it is sending a
> message to the Community, Staff and Board, that it ALREADY has broad
> community support, which in this case, it does not (YET).  We should
> not use the easy way out and have the Council approve knowing that it
> may go out later for comment as part of the DAG process.
> 
> This is a larger process issue.  As Tim stated, normally a working
> group, work team, etc., puts it out before the council even starts to
> craft a motion on policy.  We should not deviate from this important
> practice even if it will go out for comment later.  After all, every
> policy that is passed by the GNSO to the Board will eventually go out
> for public comment by the Board before it crafts a resolution.  So by
> that logic, nothing the council decides relative to policy needs to go
> out for comment, because one day the Board will put it out for comment.
> 
> Thanks again for taking this up.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 8:33 AM
> To: Tim Ruiz; Stéphane_Van_Gelder
> Cc: Neuman, Jeff; GNSO Council
> Subject: RE: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG
> 
> 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------
> > >
> > >
> >