RE: [council] Proposed amendment to OSC & PPSC motion

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Adding another layer to this is not going to solve the problem. It's a
classic management mistake. I don't believe we need a standing committee
or other oversight type committee on top of the steering committees. We
should review the charter and composition of the existing steering
committees and make them what we need them to be to accomplish what we
want. We gain nothing by adding another layer and only create additional
drain on already strained resources.

Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [council] Proposed amendment to OSC & PPSC motion
> From: "Mary Wong" <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, November 30, 2010 9:17 pm
> To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,        "Jeff
> Neuman" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
> o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
> w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
> .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, Jeff - I for one definitely appreciate the insight from you and did 
> not in any way mean to undermine or downplay the complexity of the task or 
> the hard work that the PDP team and, indeed, the other teams and committees, 
> undertook. The reason why these motions and amendments are being circulated 
> now are, I believe, two-fold; first, for a motion (and thus its context and 
> content) to be discussed at the upcoming Council meeting, it has to be 
> submitted 8 days ahead of that meeting. Secondly, I think that some 
> Councilors (myself included) would like to prevent any further drawing out of 
> the GNSO Improvements process. 
>  
> I had tried to craft language that would allow those teams whose work remains 
> ongoing - particularly the PDP work team - to complete their work without 
> worrying about re-chartering or other interference. At the same time, and 
> given that some of the other teams have completed their tasks, I didn't see a 
> reason to extend the PPSC and OSC charters, and certainly not without first 
> knowing what else remains to be done from each committee and team.
>  
> Your idea to separate the two committees may well be the way to go. For now, 
> I'm hoping that the motions will spur discussion and, hopefully, decisive but 
> correct and appropriate steps being taken by the Council in its 
> managerial role.
>  
> I hope this clarifies.
>  
> Thanks and cheers
> Mary 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law
> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
> Two White Street
> Concord, NH 03301
> USA
> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
> Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: 
> http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: 
> "Neuman, Jeff" 
> 
> To:
> Mary Wong , "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" 
> 
> Date: 
> 11/30/2010 10:02 PM
> 
> Subject: 
> RE: [council] Proposed amendment to OSC & PPSC motion
> 
> All,
> I have been watching the e-mails go by and up and am not technically a member 
> of the Council yet until this weekend when I start as an alternate for 
> Caroline Greer and then after next week I become a permanent council member 
> on behalf of the Registries.   I would like to ask that before the Council 
> considers a motion grouping the PPSC and OSC together that it takes the time 
> this weekend to learn about what these groups are doing.  The OSC and PPSC 
> are in very different positions right now.  As you know, the PPSC is divided 
> into two work teams, the Working Group Work Team and the PDP Work Team.  The 
> Working Group Work Team has delivered its final report and hopefully by the 
> time the Council meets formally next week, the Working Group Work Team will 
> be ready to deliver that report (as modified by the PPSC) to the Council.
> 
> With respect to the PDP Work Team, there is a lot more work to go.  The 
> entire PDP process, from beginning (�raising an issue�) to end (�Board 
> approval of a PDP, review of the PDP and the PDP process, etc.) is incredibly 
> complex.  The PDP Work Team distributed a 150 page initial report prior to 
> Brussels.  Very few Councilors that I have asked have read that report.   The 
> PDP Work Team has reviewed extensive public comment and is addressing both 
> issues that were left over and other new ones raised.  We have a �draft 
> final report� we are reviewing now, with the goal of getting that out to 
> the community early in 2011.  I cannot stress how hard some of the members of 
> the PDP Work Team are working and how committed they are to completing their 
> task. 
> With respect to the PPSC, I do not see a need to for the current motions 
> being circulated and am a little concerned that the motions are coming not 
> from the Council Liaisons or even members of the Steering Committees that are 
> on the Council, but rather are coming from those that may not have not been 
> that involved in the process at all.  In fact, with all due respect to the 
> Council Liaisons, the PPSC Council Liaison has not attended a PPSC meeting in 
> months (if at all).  Come to think of it, who is the Council Liaison to the 
> PPSC?  
> My personal view (and not as Chair of the PPSC or even as a gTLD Registry 
> rep) is that this motion is too premature.  Lets discuss the issues raised at 
> this meeting and worry about a motion (if one is necessary) at the next 
> meeting.  
> 
> 
> As the chair of the PPSC, I am happy to answer any questions you all have.
>  
> 
> 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.
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Mary Wong
> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 9:44 PM
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [council] Proposed amendment to OSC & PPSC motion
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Hello everyone,
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> In view of the additional information supplied by Julie, Liz and Philip, but 
> considering also Wendy's and others' points relating to the workability of 
> the current GNSO processes, I hereby propose the following amendment to 
> Wendy's motion. Fundamentally, I believe it's time, and necessary, for the 
> Council now to assume direct responsibility for reviewing the deliverables 
> from the PPSC and OSC as well as the respective work teams. In this, the 
> Council should be assisted by the Standing Committee that was supposed to 
> have been formed some time ago. 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Of course, this would not preclude either the Council or the Standing 
> Committee from consulting the teams and committees that drafted and reviewed 
> the original language and processes; it's just that - with the amount of 
> projects we are facing and the concerns already expressed over both the 
> Council's role and the workability of the new GNSO rules and procedures, the 
> seemingly-endless rounds of discussion, interpretation, delegation, referral 
> and redrafting has to stop somewhere and that should be the Council.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> So, here goes - keeping the original WHEREAS clauses, I suggest the following 
> RESOLVED clauses to the OSC and PPSC charter motion. I hope Wendy will 
> consider it friendly.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> "RESOLVED, the Council acknowledges and thanks the OSC, the PPSC and the five 
> community work teams for their hard work; and directs each steering committee 
> and applicable work team chair to identify for the Council any remaining 
> targets and benchmarks for their respective work by no later than 19 January 
> 2011, with a view toward final delivery to the Council of any remaining work 
> items so identified by no later than the San Francisco meeting.
> 
> 
> FURTHER RESOLVED, a Standing Committee to monitor implementation of GNSO 
> Improvements shall be established no later than 19 January 2011. The Standing 
> Committee will work with the Council to review and, if necessary, convene 
> relevant work teams to refine and streamline, the effectiveness of GNSO 
> Improvements on an ongoing basis."
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Thanks and cheers
> 
> 
> Mary 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> Mary W S Wong
> 
> 
> Professor of Law
> 
> 
> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> 
> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
> Two White Street
> Concord, NH 03301
> USA
> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
> Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: 
> http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>  
>  
> As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the 
> University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New 
> Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed 
> and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname@xxxxxxxxxxx. For more 
> information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit 
> law.unh.edu 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     
>       
> 
>     
>     
>       As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law 
>       Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now 
>       known as the University of 
>       New Hampshire School of Law. Please 
>       note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the 
>       convention: firstname.lastname@xxxxxxxxxxx. For more information on the 
> University 
>       of New Hampshire School of Law, please 
>       visit law.unh.edu
>     
>   
>