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 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 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
All, I have been watching the e-mails go by and up and am not technically a member of the Council yet until this weekend when I start as an alternate for Caroline Greer and then after next week I become a permanent council member on behalf of the Registries. I would like to ask that before the Council considers a motion grouping the PPSC and OSC together that it takes the time this weekend to learn about what these groups are doing. The OSC and PPSC are in very different positions right now. As you know, the PPSC is divided into two work teams, the Working Group Work Team and the PDP Work Team. The Working Group Work Team has delivered its final report and hopefully by the time the Council meets formally next week, the Working Group Work Team will be ready to deliver that report (as modified by the PPSC) to the Council. With respect to the PDP Work Team, there is a lot more work to go. The entire PDP process, from beginning ("raising an issue") to end ("Board approval of a PDP, review of the PDP and the PDP process, etc.) is incredibly complex. The PDP Work Team distributed a 150 page initial report prior to Brussels. Very few Councilors that I have asked have read that report. The PDP Work Team has reviewed extensive public comment and is addressing both issues that were left over and other new ones raised. We have a "draft final report" we are reviewing now, with the goal of getting that out to the community early in 2011. I cannot stress how hard some of the members of the PDP Work Team are working and how committed they are to completing their task. With respect to the PPSC, I do not see a need to for the current motions being circulated and am a little concerned that the motions are coming not from the Council Liaisons or even members of the Steering Committees that are on the Council, but rather are coming from those that may not have not been that involved in the process at all. In fact, with all due respect to the Council Liaisons, the PPSC Council Liaison has not attended a PPSC meeting in months (if at all). Come to think of it, who is the Council Liaison to the PPSC? My personal view (and not as Chair of the PPSC or even as a gTLD Registry rep) is that this motion is too premature. Lets discuss the issues raised at this meeting and worry about a motion (if one is necessary) at the next meeting. As the chair of the PPSC, I am happy to answer any questions you all have. 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: 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<mailto: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>
Thanks, Jeff - I for one definitely appreciate the insight from you and did not in any way mean to undermine or downplay the complexity of the task or the hard work that the PDP team and, indeed, the other teams and committees, undertook. The reason why these motions and amendments are being circulated now are, I believe, two-fold; first, for a motion (and thus its context and content) to be discussed at the upcoming Council meeting, it has to be submitted 8 days ahead of that meeting. Secondly, I think that some Councilors (myself included) would like to prevent any further drawing out of the GNSO Improvements process. I had tried to craft language that would allow those teams whose work remains ongoing - particularly the PDP work team - to complete their work without worrying about re-chartering or other interference. At the same time, and given that some of the other teams have completed their tasks, I didn't see a reason to extend the PPSC and OSC charters, and certainly not without first knowing what else remains to be done from each committee and team. Your idea to separate the two committees may well be the way to go. For now, I'm hoping that the motions will spur discussion and, hopefully, decisive but correct and appropriate steps being taken by the Council in its managerial role. I hope this clarifies. 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: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> To:Mary Wong <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 11/30/2010 10:02 PM Subject: RE: [council] Proposed amendment to OSC & PPSC motion All, I have been watching the e-mails go by and up and am not technically a member of the Council yet until this weekend when I start as an alternate for Caroline Greer and then after next week I become a permanent council member on behalf of the Registries. I would like to ask that before the Council considers a motion grouping the PPSC and OSC together that it takes the time this weekend to learn about what these groups are doing. The OSC and PPSC are in very different positions right now. As you know, the PPSC is divided into two work teams, the Working Group Work Team and the PDP Work Team. The Working Group Work Team has delivered its final report and hopefully by the time the Council meets formally next week, the Working Group Work Team will be ready to deliver that report (as modified by the PPSC) to the Council. With respect to the PDP Work Team, there is a lot more work to go. The entire PDP process, from beginning (“raising an issue”) to end (“Board approval of a PDP, review of the PDP and the PDP process, etc.) is incredibly complex. The PDP Work Team distributed a 150 page initial report prior to Brussels. Very few Councilors that I have asked have read that report. The PDP Work Team has reviewed extensive public comment and is addressing both issues that were left over and other new ones raised. We have a “draft final report” we are reviewing now, with the goal of getting that out to the community early in 2011. I cannot stress how hard some of the members of the PDP Work Team are working and how committed they are to completing their task. With respect to the PPSC, I do not see a need to for the current motions being circulated and am a little concerned that the motions are coming not from the Council Liaisons or even members of the Steering Committees that are on the Council, but rather are coming from those that may not have not been that involved in the process at all. In fact, with all due respect to the Council Liaisons, the PPSC Council Liaison has not attended a PPSC meeting in months (if at all). Come to think of it, who is the Council Liaison to the PPSC? My personal view (and not as Chair of the PPSC or even as a gTLD Registry rep) is that this motion is too premature. Lets discuss the issues raised at this meeting and worry about a motion (if one is necessary) at the next meeting. As the chair of the PPSC, I am happy to answer any questions you all have. 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: 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 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 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 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
I appreciate the constructive dialog on this. My personal opinion is that ending either steering committee at this time would draw the GNSO Improvements process out longer. Although we may not like the results of some of the OSC procedural changes approved so far, we as Councilors have as much responsibility for that as the OSC and the GCOT because we approved them. Also, when we have gone back to the OSC and GCOT with after-the-fact concerns, they have been very responsive. I firmly believe that will be the case on the latest concerns. Moreover, if there is interest in getting some new blood in the process, it has been stated several times that new participants in the GCOT are welcome. Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 10:17 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org; Jeff Neuman Subject: RE: [council] Proposed amendment to OSC & PPSC motion Thanks, Jeff - I for one definitely appreciate the insight from you and did not in any way mean to undermine or downplay the complexity of the task or the hard work that the PDP team and, indeed, the other teams and committees, undertook. The reason why these motions and amendments are being circulated now are, I believe, two-fold; first, for a motion (and thus its context and content) to be discussed at the upcoming Council meeting, it has to be submitted 8 days ahead of that meeting. Secondly, I think that some Councilors (myself included) would like to prevent any further drawing out of the GNSO Improvements process. I had tried to craft language that would allow those teams whose work remains ongoing - particularly the PDP work team - to complete their work without worrying about re-chartering or other interference. At the same time, and given that some of the other teams have completed their tasks, I didn't see a reason to extend the PPSC and OSC charters, and certainly not without first knowing what else remains to be done from each committee and team. Your idea to separate the two committees may well be the way to go. For now, I'm hoping that the motions will spur discussion and, hopefully, decisive but correct and appropriate steps being taken by the Council in its managerial role. I hope this clarifies. 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
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> To: Mary Wong <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 11/30/2010 10:02 PM Subject: RE: [council] Proposed amendment to OSC & PPSC motion All, I have been watching the e-mails go by and up and am not technically a member of the Council yet until this weekend when I start as an alternate for Caroline Greer and then after next week I become a permanent council member on behalf of the Registries. I would like to ask that before the Council considers a motion grouping the PPSC and OSC together that it takes the time this weekend to learn about what these groups are doing. The OSC and PPSC are in very different positions right now. As you know, the PPSC is divided into two work teams, the Working Group Work Team and the PDP Work Team. The Working Group Work Team has delivered its final report and hopefully by the time the Council meets formally next week, the Working Group Work Team will be ready to deliver that report (as modified by the PPSC) to the Council. With respect to the PDP Work Team, there is a lot more work to go. The entire PDP process, from beginning (“raising an issue”) to end (“Board approval of a PDP, review of the PDP and the PDP process, etc.) is incredibly complex. The PDP Work Team distributed a 150 page initial report prior to Brussels. Very few Councilors that I have asked have read that report. The PDP Work Team has reviewed extensive public comment and is addressing both issues that were left over and other new ones raised. We have a “draft final report” we are reviewing now, with the goal of getting that out to the community early in 2011. I cannot stress how hard some of the members of the PDP Work Team are working and how committed they are to completing their task. With respect to the PPSC, I do not see a need to for the current motions being circulated and am a little concerned that the motions are coming not from the Council Liaisons or even members of the Steering Committees that are on the Council, but rather are coming from those that may not have not been that involved in the process at all. In fact, with all due respect to the Council Liaisons, the PPSC Council Liaison has not attended a PPSC meeting in months (if at all). Come to think of it, who is the Council Liaison to the PPSC? My personal view (and not as Chair of the PPSC or even as a gTLD Registry rep) is that this motion is too premature. Lets discuss the issues raised at this meeting and worry about a motion (if one is necessary) at the next meeting. As the chair of the PPSC, I am happy to answer any questions you all have. 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: 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 - Do you accept this as a friendly amendment? 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>
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>
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 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: "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 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 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 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
If I can just respond to some of these points: I do not view it to be helpful to the policy process for the Council to pass a resolution essentially telling policy groups to “hurry up and finish your work because we are tired of this being on our agenda”. I know those are not the words being used, but that is the message being sent. Do Council members believe that simply because it passes a resolution, those that have already been participating will all of a sudden move that much more quickly? The real issue, at least with respect to the PPSC, is the clear lack of participation by a number of constituencies/stakeholder groups in the process, whether at the Work Team or Steering Committee level. How about a resolution whereby each Councilor agrees to ensure that its representatives actually show up for calls, respond to e-mails and actually participate? As someone who has personally approached the Council on several occasions begging you all to you back to your groups to get participation to little or no avail, this motion is counter-productive at best. I feel the same frustration everyone on the council felt when the ICANN Board told the Council it needed to move faster to solve the issues with respect to vertical integration. It was poor management skills of the ICANN Board to order that of the council, and it would be the same poor management skills of the Council to do the same to the Steering Committees and Work Teams. Lets not worry about resolutions at this point and coming up with top-down solutions that are not well thought out. Lets ask what these groups need to complete their jobs and give the groups what they need to do their work. As for the PDP Work Team, here is what I believe we need: 1. Participation by Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies: The PDP Work Team has several people that participate, but there are entire constituencies that have been completely absent for months (or even years at this point). How about a commitment from Councilors to remove those from their constituencies/stakeholder groups that are on the Work Team that do not participate and replacing them with those that have the time and resources to do so. 2. Encouraging discussions within their own constituencies and stakeholder groups of the substance of the proposed recommendations and ensuring reps to the Work Teams have the feedback they need to contribute; and 3. Appointing a Council Liaison that is able to attend meetings and participate. If we can accomplish 1-3 above, then we will be able to meet our deadlines and hopefully not have to worry about whether the PPSC or other standing committee adds another level of bureaucracy or not. Those are just my personal thoughts. 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: 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<mailto: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<mailto: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>
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>
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/
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
All, my point in this context is "responsibility". Terminating working teams and SC's before they could finish the work appropriately and taking over this unfinished work by the council and new committees appears as changing the horses during a galop. New teams don't feel responsible for the (almost) result of the existing ones as well as they need time to organize themthelves. As a member of the OSC and several (too many?) working teams I can state that the so far active participants in those teams show a very high level of responsibility even with respect to the implementation of the team recommendations. As most of the recommendations are compromise solutions with regards to the details it is essential to test their practicability. The teams are keen on learning from this and to come up with improvements along the council's direction. There is no question about "teams to review themselves" rather than looking to whether their tasks have been fulfilled to the council's satisfaction and to adjust what goes wrong. I'm sharing Jeffs (welcome as newly elected VC!) view to encourage better participation in the WT's rather to start with new committees. Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Mary Wong Gesendet: Donnerstag, 2. Dezember 2010 03:46 Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: 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@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: 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 <http://law.unh.edu> law.unh.edu
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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 9:46 PM Cc: council@gnso.icann.org 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@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: 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 <http://law.unh.edu>
participants (5)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
KnobenW＠telekom.de -
Mary Wong -
Neuman, Jeff -
Wendy Seltzer