Council formed a drafting team in this case, but it's the same issue. Regardless, there is a historical expectation on the part of the community. We need to consider how that should be applied here, and going forward to avoid this issue. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: AW: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG From: <KnobenW@telekom.de> Date: Thu, May 20, 2010 8:25 am To: <tim@godaddy.com>, <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Cc: <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>, <council@gnso.icann.org> Are we rally talking about PDP issues rather than revising the DAGv4 which I understand is the execution of a former PDP? Regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Tim Ruiz Gesendet: Donnerstag, 20. Mai 2010 14:25 An: Stéphane_Van_Gelder Cc: Jeff Neuman; GNSO Council Betreff: RE: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG This is not about whether Council motions should be put out for public comment, or even about setting that precendent. Normal procedures for PDPs or WTs is that some opportunity for public comment/input is provided along the way - constituency statements, initial reports, etc. In this case that was not provided for, and I take Jeff's suggestion that the motion go out for public comment as simply a way to resolve the concern, or what he feels is missing, in this particular case. In our consideration of this I think it would help if Staff can let us know how this recommendation would likely be handled if we approve the motion as is. Will the recommendation make it into DAGv4? If so, and it is specifically spelled out as one of the changes in the announcement of DAGv4, then that might resolve the concern with providing an opportunity for public comment. One way or the other though, this change certainly should not find its way in the final applicant guidebook without an opportunity for the community to review and comment on it. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: AW: [council] Motion from IDNG From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Date: Thu, May 20, 2010 3:46 am To: GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: Jeff Neuman <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> I agree this is something we should discuss. I also have concerns, but those are more to do with my own understanding of the way the Council should act, and the challenges to that that Jeff's note brings. Of particular interest to me is his assertion that Council should put out this motion for public comment. I do not recall ever seeing Council's ability to act on properly submitted motions (such as this one) without first putting said motion out for public comment questioned in this way. If I understand Jeff's meaning correctly, he is suggesting that Council's decision-making process be slowed down to include, at every step, the possibility for public comment. While I understand the rationale, I think that Council is tasked with leading the GNSO and that doing what I understand Jeff to be suggesting would render Council ineffective in doing so. There is plenty of opportunity for community input built into the Council procedures as is, I don't think that our motions should be put out to public comment before we vote on them. What would that mean to our timelines anyway? That we would submit a motion, then wait 30 days for public comments, then have staff process them, then read the process report, then discuss the motion again...? I respect Jeff's opinion greatly, and think that he is able to provide the Council with input that we should take on board, not least because of his heavy involvement in the GNSO restructure effort which has undoubtedly given him a great deal of clarity of vision into our processes. But I am wary of what I understand Jeff to be suggesting here, because I think it will effectively stall Council function. I am copying Jeff so that he may correct me if I have understood what he is suggesting incorrectly. Stéphane Le 20 mai 2010 à 09:33, <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit :
I've not yet process concerns. But we should try to solve the procedural issue in general.
Regards Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Rosette, Kristina Gesendet: Mittwoch, 19. Mai 2010 22:00 An: tim@godaddy.com; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: Re: [council] Motion from IDNG
It is now.
I have similar process concerns. I also have substance concerns.
------Original Message------ From: Tim Ruiz To: GNSO Council ReplyTo: Tim Ruiz Subject: RE: [council] Motion from IDNG Sent: May 19, 2010 3:52 PM
Chuck,
Some of the Councilors, including myself, were copied on a letter from Jeff Neuman to the Council regarding this motion. Is that going to posted to the Council list? I'd like an opportunity to discuss it and understand others' thoughts on it.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Motion from IDNG From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Wed, May 19, 2010 2:09 pm To: "Edmon Chung" <edmon@registry.asia>, <council@gnso.icann.org>
I agree with Avri's response.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 12:50 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Motion from IDNG
Hi Kristina, Forwarding a note from Avri who helped write the document:
Hi Edmon -
On 19 May 2010, at 10:12, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
Is the exception extended to apply only where (a) the same entity is the applicant for both strings; or (b) there is a unity of source for the strings by virtue of a corporate relationship or legal agreement between the applicant and the operator of the prior string?
My single person opinion.
I think that is pretty much up to the determination of the extended panel. Obviously the second example shows that it does not need to be the same entity. It would be up to the panel to figure out whether
------Original Message Truncated------