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

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

Mary,

I am confused.  I didn’t read your first resolve clause to mean that the PPSC 
and OSC charters would terminate in Cartagena but rather in SF:

“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.”

 

How could we end their charters and ask them to do more work.  It seems to me 
that we would need to extend their charters to SF.  What am I missing here?

Chuck

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 9:46 PM
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Proposed amendment to OSC & PPSC motion

 

Hi Wendy,

 

Yes, my proposal would terminate the PPSC and OSC charters in Cartagena.

 

I should add that, in relation to Jeff's and others' points about ongoing work, 
particularly for the PDP WT, I would be happy to discuss alternative 
deliverable dates for specific WTs, in case the San Francisco meeting is 
unrealistic for one or more teams. My proposal was in no way meant to 
artificially conclude the implementation process, but merely to streamline 
Council management of it overall.

 

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: 

Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To:

"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

CC:

Mary Wong <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Date: 

12/1/2010 5:27 PM

Subject: 

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


I'm hoping for further discussion on the list before considering
possibly-friendly amendments.

As I see it, we've heard three options:
* extend the PPSC and OSC charters through San Francisco (Chuck)
* permit the charters to terminate as scheduled (Wendy)
* request concluding reports and create a Standing Committee (Mary)


Mary, would your proposed first RESOLVED still terminate the PPSC and
OSC charters in Cartagena?

I support creating a Standing Committee, and appreciate Jeff's and
others' suggestions on how to make that work effectively. Unless that
would change anyone's pro vote to con, I would take Mary's second
RESOLVED as friendly.

Thanks,
--Wendy

On 12/01/2010 02:43 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> Thanks Mary.  I also thought of combining the motions but for now let’s see 
> where the discussion goes.
> 
> Chuck
> 
>  
> 
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Mary Wong
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 12:56 PM
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] Proposed amendment to OSC & PPSC motion
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks for the comments, Chuck and Tim. Hopefully the following clarification 
> will help matters:
> 
>  
> 
> (1) I actually borrowed (er, copied :) the first resolve clause from Chuck's 
> original motion, as I agree it's important to wrap up the improvements 
> process and we'll need clear and specific indicators of what remains due and 
> when in order to do so. If it would have been more appropriate to propose my 
> amendment as an amendment to Chuck's rather than Wendy's motion, I can 
> perhaps do that (if it's within the rules to do so).
> 
>  
> 
> (2) The intent was NOT to add an extra layer; rather, it was to reduce 
> duplication and delay by having the Council take over from where the OSC and 
> PPSC are now. My reasons for this include (i) the need to wrap things up as 
> mentioned already; (ii) the risk of further delay if we keep referring things 
> back to the OSC/PPSC to then pass on to individual work teams, for funneling 
> back to us; (iii) the resulting inefficiencies once the Council discovers 
> certain procedures or recommendations to be unworkable, thus resulting in yet 
> another go-around; and (iv) the need for the Council to step in and exercise 
> a true managerial function, which includes substantive review.
> 
>  
> 
> (3) On that last point, there had been consensus around creating a Standing 
> Committee that would NOT be the equivalent of the OSC and/or PPSC. The 
> Standing Committee would (i) assist the Council in its review work; (ii) 
> review at the Council's request existing processes (as it would not be 
> appropriate for those who drafted the procedures to be reviewing 
> themselves!); and (iii) if necessary and/or requested by the Council, convene 
> new drafting/work teams should subsequent drafting or other work be necessary 
> in the fullness of time.
> 
>  
> 
> As to the question of whether the Council will be less busy and/or pay more 
> critical attention now than perhaps some of us did before, I hope so. The 
> incidents we have already raised must mean we need to, and I believe my 
> amendments will clarify for the community that this is indeed what we are 
> prepared to do.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 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: 
> 
> "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> To:
> 
> "Mary Wong" <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Date: 
> 
> 12/1/2010 10:04 AM
> 
> Subject: 
> 
> RE: [council] Proposed amendment to OSC & PPSC motion
> 
> I want to point out that the motion I made to extend the PPSC and OSC 
> charters was very similar to the first resolve of Mary’s proposed amendment 
> with regard to timing.  It also only extended the charters to the San 
> Francisco meeting and that was done consciously by me because I also believe 
> that we need to wrap up the GNSO improvements work quickly.  And I personally 
> support directing “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”.
> 
> Recognizing that the RySG has not discussed this yet, I have concerns about 
> the second resolve because I like Tim believe it will result in duplication 
> of effort and inefficiency.  We have three layers now; we would have four 
> then.  Finally, asking the Council to be more directly involved seems to me 
> something that should already be the case.  The Council approved the 
> procedures that we are now so concerned about.  The excuse is that we were 
> all too busy.  Is that going to change in the next few months?
> 
> Chuck 
> 
> 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 <http://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 <http://law.unh.edu>  
> 


-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx +1 914-374-0613
Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
http://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/donate        <<        please donate!
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/

 

 

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 
<http://law.unh.edu>