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

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with this and consider it friendly.

Thanks!
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx



From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 10:34 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] Final Working Group Work Team Report & Motion

Sorry, I missed the second reference to a one-pager. This should read :


RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council recommends that a concise summary of the 
WG Guidelines be drafted by ICANN Staff, following approval of the GNSO Working 
Guidelines by the GNSO Council, in order to serve as a primer to the full 
document  for potential WG members. The summary should be approved by the PPSC 
before being submitted to the GNSO Council.

Stéphane

Le 11 janv. 2011 à 16:25, Stéphane Van Gelder a écrit :

Thanks Jeff.

So how about this as the full additional Resolve:

RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council recommends that a concise summary of the 
WG Guidelines be drafted by ICANN Staff, following approval of the GNSO Working 
Guidelines by the GNSO Council, in order to serve as a primer to the full 
document  for potential WG members. The one-page summary should be approved by 
the PPSC before being submitted to the GNSO Council.

Stéphane

Le 11 janv. 2011 à 16:18, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :

I believe that this would be friendly if we can remove the word "one-page" and 
replace with something like "short and concise.". Totally understand and agree 
with the concept, but the words "one-page" may be too limiting. If you can 
accept that, I will gladly accept the rest as friendly.

Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>



From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 09:58 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: 'GNSO Council' <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [council] Final Working Group Work Team Report & Motion

Thanks Jeff.

That being the case, I would like to propose an amendment to your motion.

I would propose that a 3rd resolved clause be added stating the following:

RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council recommends that a one-page summary of 
the WG Guidelines be drafted by ICANN Staff in order to serve as a primer to 
the full document  for potential WG members. The one-page summary should be 
approved by the PPSC before being submitted to the GNSO Council.

I hope you can consider this amendment friendly.

Thanks,

Stéphane

Le 10 janv. 2011 à 17:32, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :

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-implementation-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>);

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 / 
jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>  / 
www.neustar.biz<http://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>