Fwd: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Message sent on behalf of Jeff Neuman.

Stéphane

Début du message réexpédié :

> De : "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date : 20 mai 2010 13:25:43 HAEC
> À : "'stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx'" <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, 
> "'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Objet : Rép : 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 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------
>> 
>> 
>