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 LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> To:"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> CC:Mary Wong <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu>, <council@gnso.icann.org> 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 12:56 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org 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@law.unh.edu 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@verisign.com>
To:
"Mary Wong" <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu>, <council@gnso.icann.org>
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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 9:44 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org 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@law.unh.edu 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@law.unh.edu. 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@law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu <http://law.unh.edu>
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +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@law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu