RES: [council] Final Working Group Work Team Report & Motion

["Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf" <jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff,

 

Excuse me, but I think that if there is a simpler way, it should be the
first one.

 

I tend to redirect the WG team to come up with the simpler version upfront
and not to accept a piece of work that would generate more work to the staff
afterwards ? that?s rework.

 

 

 

Jaime Wagner

jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Direto (51) 3219-5955  Cel (51) 8126-0916

Geral  (51) 3233-3551  DDG: 0800-703-6366

 <http://www.powerself.com.br/> www.powerself.com.br

 

De: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Em
nome de Neuman, Jeff
Enviada em: segunda-feira, 10 de janeiro de 2011 14:32
Para: Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc: 'GNSO Council'
Assunto: RE: [council] Final Working Group Work Team Report & Motion

 

Stephane,

 

I think you have some good points and I completely understand the notion of
having too much to read for what seems like fairly simple concepts.  The
PPSC did not discuss this issue and I am not sure to what extent the WG-WT
discussed.  

 

However, I believe that once the principles are approved by the Council,
that we (the Council) can direct the staff to draft up a shorter summary
(with encouragement to read the full report).  I suppose the PPSC could
review the summary to make sure it is in line with the final report.  We
could also when it comes time to approve the principles in our motion direct
that staff hold a short session at the start of every Working Group to
educate Working Group members on the basics for those interested.

 

Hope that helps.


Best regards,

 

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: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 10:17 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: 'GNSO Council'
Subject: Re: [council] Final Working Group Work Team Report & Motion

 

Hi Jeff,

 

Because these WG guidelines are intended for use by WG members (see 1.3) I
find it surprising that they would be expected to read a 35 page document in
order to get a grasp on the way ICANN recommends they should set-up and run
their WG.

 

I do not find it realistic to expect volunteer members of a WG, not all of
which would necessarily be very clued on up ICANN processes (nor should we
expect them to be if we are to encourage broader community participation),
to have to tackle such a report. As such, I fear that what we will end up
seeing happening is that people do not read these guidelines and do not
profit from them.

 

With regards to this, has the idea of producing a one-page summary of the
guidelines been discussed by the PPSC at all? The idea would be to have some
kind of WG guideline "primer" which could help people understand what is
expected of them as part of a GNSO WG.

 

Thanks,

 

Stéphane

Le 2 janv. 2011 à 03:53, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :

 

All,

 

Please find enclosed the Final Working Group Work Team report as approved by
the Policy Process Steering Committee.   I am also attaching for the
Council?s review a redline of the report that compares the Final to the
Interim Report that came out prior to the Brussels meeting.  The changes
reflect public comments to the Interim report plus changes made as a result
of questions raised by the PPSC as addressed by the Working Group Work Team.
All of the constituencies/Stakeholder Groups represented on the PPSC
approved the final report with the exception of the Business Constituency,
who did not vote.   The ALAC representative, who does not officially get a
vote, also expressed his approval of the report.

 

A non-official informal poll was taken within the PPSC as to whether we
should recommend to the Council that it put the final report out for public
comment before review/approval given the changes that have been made since
the last time the report was out for comment.  The Registries, IPC and ISP
representatives believe the GNSO Council should place the report out for
comment; the Registrars did not think it was necessary, but did not object;
the BC did not vote; and the NCSG opposed making this recommendation to the
Council (believing that the Council should decide for itself what it wanted
to do).

 

The motion I present below acknowledges receipt of report and requests that
the report go out for comment (should the council elect to put it out for
comment).

 

I would be happy to answer any questions.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Motion to Acknowledge the Receipt of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and
Initiate a Public Comment Period

 

WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework (see GNSO
Council Improvements Implementation Plan;
<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implemen
tation-plan-16oct08.pdf>
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implement
ation-plan-16oct08.pdf) for implementing the various GNSO Improvements
identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008 (
<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182>
http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182 <
<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm>
http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm>);

 

WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two
Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and thePolicy
Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of
five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to
implement the improvements;

 

WHEREAS, the PPSC established two work teams, including the Working Group
Work Team (WG WT), which was chartered to develop a new GNSO Working Group
Model that improves inclusiveness, improves effectiveness, and improves
efficiency;

 

WHEREAS, the WG WT completed its deliberations and forwarded the GNSO
Working Group Guidelines to the PPSC on 1 November 2010;

 

WHEREAS, the PPSC reviewed and approved the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on
20 December 2010 [includelink to GNSO Working Group Guidelines once posted]

and forwarded the report to the GNSO Council on 30 December 2010;

 

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

 

RESOLVED that the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of the GNSO Working
Group Guidelines as delivered by the PPSC and directs ICANN Staff to
commence a twenty-one (21) day public comment period on the GNSO Working
Group Guidelines.

 

RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council shall take action on the GNSO Working
Group Guidelines as soon as possible after the end of the public comment
period.

 

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166
Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965 /
<mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx> jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx  /
<http://www.neustar.biz/> www.neustar.biz     

  _____  

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.

 

<GNSO WG Guidelines - FINAL - 10 December
2010.pdf><GNSO_WG_Guideline_Revised_Final_Redline_10 December 2010.doc>