RE: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

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? 

KR:  Interesting question, Tim.  If the action on the IRT recommendation for a 
broader similarity standard and a request for reconsideration process (both of 
which were, based on the lack of public comment, relatively uncontroversial) is 
any indication, it won't go in.  I don't recall any discussion in the DAG3 or 
public comment analysis text about why the IRT recommendation did not go in. 

Jeff, do you?

 

-----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------
> 
>