Final Working Group Work Team Report & Motion
All, Please find enclosed the Final Working Group Work Team report as approved by the Policy Process Steering Committee. I am also attaching for the Council's review a redline of the report that compares the Final to the Interim Report that came out prior to the Brussels meeting. The changes reflect public comments to the Interim report plus changes made as a result of questions raised by the PPSC as addressed by the Working Group Work Team. All of the constituencies/Stakeholder Groups represented on the PPSC approved the final report with the exception of the Business Constituency, who did not vote. The ALAC representative, who does not officially get a vote, also expressed his approval of the report. A non-official informal poll was taken within the PPSC as to whether we should recommend to the Council that it put the final report out for public comment before review/approval given the changes that have been made since the last time the report was out for comment. The Registries, IPC and ISP representatives believe the GNSO Council should place the report out for comment; the Registrars did not think it was necessary, but did not object; the BC did not vote; and the NCSG opposed making this recommendation to the Council (believing that the Council should decide for itself what it wanted to do). The motion I present below acknowledges receipt of report and requests that the report go out for comment (should the council elect to put it out for comment). I would be happy to answer any questions. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Motion to Acknowledge the Receipt of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and Initiate a Public Comment Period WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework (see GNSO Council Improvements Implementation Plan; http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implement...) for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182 <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm>); WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and thePolicy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements; WHEREAS, the PPSC established two work teams, including the Working Group Work Team (WG WT), which was chartered to develop a new GNSO Working Group Model that improves inclusiveness, improves effectiveness, and improves efficiency; WHEREAS, the WG WT completed its deliberations and forwarded the GNSO Working Group Guidelines to the PPSC on 1 November 2010; WHEREAS, the PPSC reviewed and approved the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on 20 December 2010 [includelink to GNSO Working Group Guidelines once posted] and forwarded the report to the GNSO Council on 30 December 2010; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED that the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as delivered by the PPSC and directs ICANN Staff to commence a twenty-one (21) day public comment period on the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council shall take action on the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as soon as possible after the end of the public comment period. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman@neustar.biz<mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
Thanks Jeff. Councillors, please note that the motion is not asking us to endorse the report at this stage, but simply to acknowledge receipt of the report. As Jeff as outlined, the main decision for us at this stage is whether we wish to initiate a public comment period or not. Doing so right now would help publicize the work done on this topic and help the WG WT and us ascertain whether this report should be approved or whether there are elements that should be reworked. I would therefore recommend that we approve Jeff's motion and initiate the comment period on this report. I second Jeff's motion. Thanks, Stéphane Le 2 janv. 2011 à 03:53, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
All,
Please find enclosed the Final Working Group Work Team report as approved by the Policy Process Steering Committee. I am also attaching for the Council’s review a redline of the report that compares the Final to the Interim Report that came out prior to the Brussels meeting. The changes reflect public comments to the Interim report plus changes made as a result of questions raised by the PPSC as addressed by the Working Group Work Team. All of the constituencies/Stakeholder Groups represented on the PPSC approved the final report with the exception of the Business Constituency, who did not vote. The ALAC representative, who does not officially get a vote, also expressed his approval of the report.
A non-official informal poll was taken within the PPSC as to whether we should recommend to the Council that it put the final report out for public comment before review/approval given the changes that have been made since the last time the report was out for comment. The Registries, IPC and ISP representatives believe the GNSO Council should place the report out for comment; the Registrars did not think it was necessary, but did not object; the BC did not vote; and the NCSG opposed making this recommendation to the Council (believing that the Council should decide for itself what it wanted to do).
The motion I present below acknowledges receipt of report and requests that the report go out for comment (should the council elect to put it out for comment).
I would be happy to answer any questions.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Motion to Acknowledge the Receipt of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and Initiate a Public Comment Period
WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework (see GNSO Council Improvements Implementation Plan; http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implement...) for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182 <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm>);
WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and thePolicy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements;
WHEREAS, the PPSC established two work teams, including the Working Group Work Team (WG WT), which was chartered to develop a new GNSO Working Group Model that improves inclusiveness, improves effectiveness, and improves efficiency;
WHEREAS, the WG WT completed its deliberations and forwarded the GNSO Working Group Guidelines to the PPSC on 1 November 2010;
WHEREAS, the PPSC reviewed and approved the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on 20 December 2010 [includelink to GNSO Working Group Guidelines once posted] and forwarded the report to the GNSO Council on 30 December 2010;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED that the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as delivered by the PPSC and directs ICANN Staff to commence a twenty-one (21) day public comment period on the GNSO Working Group Guidelines.
RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council shall take action on the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as soon as possible after the end of the public comment period.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
<GNSO WG Guidelines - FINAL - 10 December 2010.pdf><GNSO_WG_Guideline_Revised_Final_Redline_10 December 2010.doc>
Hi Jeff, Because these WG guidelines are intended for use by WG members (see 1.3) I find it surprising that they would be expected to read a 35 page document in order to get a grasp on the way ICANN recommends they should set-up and run their WG. I do not find it realistic to expect volunteer members of a WG, not all of which would necessarily be very clued on up ICANN processes (nor should we expect them to be if we are to encourage broader community participation), to have to tackle such a report. As such, I fear that what we will end up seeing happening is that people do not read these guidelines and do not profit from them. With regards to this, has the idea of producing a one-page summary of the guidelines been discussed by the PPSC at all? The idea would be to have some kind of WG guideline "primer" which could help people understand what is expected of them as part of a GNSO WG. Thanks, Stéphane Le 2 janv. 2011 à 03:53, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
All,
Please find enclosed the Final Working Group Work Team report as approved by the Policy Process Steering Committee. I am also attaching for the Council’s review a redline of the report that compares the Final to the Interim Report that came out prior to the Brussels meeting. The changes reflect public comments to the Interim report plus changes made as a result of questions raised by the PPSC as addressed by the Working Group Work Team. All of the constituencies/Stakeholder Groups represented on the PPSC approved the final report with the exception of the Business Constituency, who did not vote. The ALAC representative, who does not officially get a vote, also expressed his approval of the report.
A non-official informal poll was taken within the PPSC as to whether we should recommend to the Council that it put the final report out for public comment before review/approval given the changes that have been made since the last time the report was out for comment. The Registries, IPC and ISP representatives believe the GNSO Council should place the report out for comment; the Registrars did not think it was necessary, but did not object; the BC did not vote; and the NCSG opposed making this recommendation to the Council (believing that the Council should decide for itself what it wanted to do).
The motion I present below acknowledges receipt of report and requests that the report go out for comment (should the council elect to put it out for comment).
I would be happy to answer any questions.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Motion to Acknowledge the Receipt of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and Initiate a Public Comment Period
WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework (see GNSO Council Improvements Implementation Plan; http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implement...) for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182 <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm>);
WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and thePolicy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements;
WHEREAS, the PPSC established two work teams, including the Working Group Work Team (WG WT), which was chartered to develop a new GNSO Working Group Model that improves inclusiveness, improves effectiveness, and improves efficiency;
WHEREAS, the WG WT completed its deliberations and forwarded the GNSO Working Group Guidelines to the PPSC on 1 November 2010;
WHEREAS, the PPSC reviewed and approved the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on 20 December 2010 [includelink to GNSO Working Group Guidelines once posted] and forwarded the report to the GNSO Council on 30 December 2010;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED that the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as delivered by the PPSC and directs ICANN Staff to commence a twenty-one (21) day public comment period on the GNSO Working Group Guidelines.
RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council shall take action on the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as soon as possible after the end of the public comment period.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
<GNSO WG Guidelines - FINAL - 10 December 2010.pdf><GNSO_WG_Guideline_Revised_Final_Redline_10 December 2010.doc>
Stephane, I think you have some good points and I completely understand the notion of having too much to read for what seems like fairly simple concepts. The PPSC did not discuss this issue and I am not sure to what extent the WG-WT discussed. However, I believe that once the principles are approved by the Council, that we (the Council) can direct the staff to draft up a shorter summary (with encouragement to read the full report). I suppose the PPSC could review the summary to make sure it is in line with the final report. We could also when it comes time to approve the principles in our motion direct that staff hold a short session at the start of every Working Group to educate Working Group members on the basics for those interested. Hope that helps. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 10:17 AM To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: 'GNSO Council' Subject: Re: [council] Final Working Group Work Team Report & Motion Hi Jeff, Because these WG guidelines are intended for use by WG members (see 1.3) I find it surprising that they would be expected to read a 35 page document in order to get a grasp on the way ICANN recommends they should set-up and run their WG. I do not find it realistic to expect volunteer members of a WG, not all of which would necessarily be very clued on up ICANN processes (nor should we expect them to be if we are to encourage broader community participation), to have to tackle such a report. As such, I fear that what we will end up seeing happening is that people do not read these guidelines and do not profit from them. With regards to this, has the idea of producing a one-page summary of the guidelines been discussed by the PPSC at all? The idea would be to have some kind of WG guideline "primer" which could help people understand what is expected of them as part of a GNSO WG. Thanks, Stéphane Le 2 janv. 2011 à 03:53, Neuman, Jeff a écrit : All, Please find enclosed the Final Working Group Work Team report as approved by the Policy Process Steering Committee. I am also attaching for the Council's review a redline of the report that compares the Final to the Interim Report that came out prior to the Brussels meeting. The changes reflect public comments to the Interim report plus changes made as a result of questions raised by the PPSC as addressed by the Working Group Work Team. All of the constituencies/Stakeholder Groups represented on the PPSC approved the final report with the exception of the Business Constituency, who did not vote. The ALAC representative, who does not officially get a vote, also expressed his approval of the report. A non-official informal poll was taken within the PPSC as to whether we should recommend to the Council that it put the final report out for public comment before review/approval given the changes that have been made since the last time the report was out for comment. The Registries, IPC and ISP representatives believe the GNSO Council should place the report out for comment; the Registrars did not think it was necessary, but did not object; the BC did not vote; and the NCSG opposed making this recommendation to the Council (believing that the Council should decide for itself what it wanted to do). The motion I present below acknowledges receipt of report and requests that the report go out for comment (should the council elect to put it out for comment). I would be happy to answer any questions. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Motion to Acknowledge the Receipt of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and Initiate a Public Comment Period WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework (see GNSO Council Improvements Implementation Plan; http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implement...) for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182 <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm>); WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and thePolicy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements; WHEREAS, the PPSC established two work teams, including the Working Group Work Team (WG WT), which was chartered to develop a new GNSO Working Group Model that improves inclusiveness, improves effectiveness, and improves efficiency; WHEREAS, the WG WT completed its deliberations and forwarded the GNSO Working Group Guidelines to the PPSC on 1 November 2010; WHEREAS, the PPSC reviewed and approved the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on 20 December 2010 [includelink to GNSO Working Group Guidelines once posted] and forwarded the report to the GNSO Council on 30 December 2010; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED that the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as delivered by the PPSC and directs ICANN Staff to commence a twenty-one (21) day public comment period on the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council shall take action on the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as soon as possible after the end of the public comment period. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman@neustar.biz<mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. <GNSO WG Guidelines - FINAL - 10 December 2010.pdf><GNSO_WG_Guideline_Revised_Final_Redline_10 December 2010.doc>
Jeff, Excuse me, but I think that if there is a simpler way, it should be the first one. I tend to redirect the WG team to come up with the simpler version upfront and not to accept a piece of work that would generate more work to the staff afterwards thats rework. Jaime Wagner jaime@powerself.com.br Direto (51) 3219-5955 Cel (51) 8126-0916 Geral (51) 3233-3551 DDG: 0800-703-6366 <http://www.powerself.com.br/> www.powerself.com.br De: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Em nome de Neuman, Jeff Enviada em: segunda-feira, 10 de janeiro de 2011 14:32 Para: Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: 'GNSO Council' Assunto: RE: [council] Final Working Group Work Team Report & Motion Stephane, I think you have some good points and I completely understand the notion of having too much to read for what seems like fairly simple concepts. The PPSC did not discuss this issue and I am not sure to what extent the WG-WT discussed. However, I believe that once the principles are approved by the Council, that we (the Council) can direct the staff to draft up a shorter summary (with encouragement to read the full report). I suppose the PPSC could review the summary to make sure it is in line with the final report. We could also when it comes time to approve the principles in our motion direct that staff hold a short session at the start of every Working Group to educate Working Group members on the basics for those interested. Hope that helps. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy _____ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 10:17 AM To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: 'GNSO Council' Subject: Re: [council] Final Working Group Work Team Report & Motion Hi Jeff, Because these WG guidelines are intended for use by WG members (see 1.3) I find it surprising that they would be expected to read a 35 page document in order to get a grasp on the way ICANN recommends they should set-up and run their WG. I do not find it realistic to expect volunteer members of a WG, not all of which would necessarily be very clued on up ICANN processes (nor should we expect them to be if we are to encourage broader community participation), to have to tackle such a report. As such, I fear that what we will end up seeing happening is that people do not read these guidelines and do not profit from them. With regards to this, has the idea of producing a one-page summary of the guidelines been discussed by the PPSC at all? The idea would be to have some kind of WG guideline "primer" which could help people understand what is expected of them as part of a GNSO WG. Thanks, Stéphane Le 2 janv. 2011 à 03:53, Neuman, Jeff a écrit : All, Please find enclosed the Final Working Group Work Team report as approved by the Policy Process Steering Committee. I am also attaching for the Councils review a redline of the report that compares the Final to the Interim Report that came out prior to the Brussels meeting. The changes reflect public comments to the Interim report plus changes made as a result of questions raised by the PPSC as addressed by the Working Group Work Team. All of the constituencies/Stakeholder Groups represented on the PPSC approved the final report with the exception of the Business Constituency, who did not vote. The ALAC representative, who does not officially get a vote, also expressed his approval of the report. A non-official informal poll was taken within the PPSC as to whether we should recommend to the Council that it put the final report out for public comment before review/approval given the changes that have been made since the last time the report was out for comment. The Registries, IPC and ISP representatives believe the GNSO Council should place the report out for comment; the Registrars did not think it was necessary, but did not object; the BC did not vote; and the NCSG opposed making this recommendation to the Council (believing that the Council should decide for itself what it wanted to do). The motion I present below acknowledges receipt of report and requests that the report go out for comment (should the council elect to put it out for comment). I would be happy to answer any questions. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Motion to Acknowledge the Receipt of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and Initiate a Public Comment Period WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework (see GNSO Council Improvements Implementation Plan; <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implemen tation-plan-16oct08.pdf> http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implement ation-plan-16oct08.pdf) for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008 ( <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182> http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182 < <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm> http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm>); WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and thePolicy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements; WHEREAS, the PPSC established two work teams, including the Working Group Work Team (WG WT), which was chartered to develop a new GNSO Working Group Model that improves inclusiveness, improves effectiveness, and improves efficiency; WHEREAS, the WG WT completed its deliberations and forwarded the GNSO Working Group Guidelines to the PPSC on 1 November 2010; WHEREAS, the PPSC reviewed and approved the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on 20 December 2010 [includelink to GNSO Working Group Guidelines once posted] and forwarded the report to the GNSO Council on 30 December 2010; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED that the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as delivered by the PPSC and directs ICANN Staff to commence a twenty-one (21) day public comment period on the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council shall take action on the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as soon as possible after the end of the public comment period. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / <mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> jeff.neuman@neustar.biz / <http://www.neustar.biz/> www.neustar.biz _____ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. <GNSO WG Guidelines - FINAL - 10 December 2010.pdf><GNSO_WG_Guideline_Revised_Final_Redline_10 December 2010.doc>
Hi Jaimie, Would you like to submit an amendment proposal to the motion that now includes a mention of the need for a precis of the full report? Thanks, Stéphane Le 11 janv. 2011 à 15:12, Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf a écrit :
Jeff,
Excuse me, but I think that if there is a simpler way, it should be the first one.
I tend to redirect the WG team to come up with the simpler version upfront and not to accept a piece of work that would generate more work to the staff afterwards – that’s rework.
Jaime Wagner jaime@powerself.com.br Direto (51) 3219-5955 Cel (51) 8126-0916 Geral (51) 3233-3551 DDG: 0800-703-6366 www.powerself.com.br
De: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Em nome de Neuman, Jeff Enviada em: segunda-feira, 10 de janeiro de 2011 14:32 Para: Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: 'GNSO Council' Assunto: RE: [council] Final Working Group Work Team Report & Motion
Stephane,
I think you have some good points and I completely understand the notion of having too much to read for what seems like fairly simple concepts. The PPSC did not discuss this issue and I am not sure to what extent the WG-WT discussed.
However, I believe that once the principles are approved by the Council, that we (the Council) can direct the staff to draft up a shorter summary (with encouragement to read the full report). I suppose the PPSC could review the summary to make sure it is in line with the final report. We could also when it comes time to approve the principles in our motion direct that staff hold a short session at the start of every Working Group to educate Working Group members on the basics for those interested.
Hope that helps.
Best regards,
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 10:17 AM To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: 'GNSO Council' Subject: Re: [council] Final Working Group Work Team Report & Motion
Hi Jeff,
Because these WG guidelines are intended for use by WG members (see 1.3) I find it surprising that they would be expected to read a 35 page document in order to get a grasp on the way ICANN recommends they should set-up and run their WG.
I do not find it realistic to expect volunteer members of a WG, not all of which would necessarily be very clued on up ICANN processes (nor should we expect them to be if we are to encourage broader community participation), to have to tackle such a report. As such, I fear that what we will end up seeing happening is that people do not read these guidelines and do not profit from them.
With regards to this, has the idea of producing a one-page summary of the guidelines been discussed by the PPSC at all? The idea would be to have some kind of WG guideline "primer" which could help people understand what is expected of them as part of a GNSO WG.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 2 janv. 2011 à 03:53, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
All,
Please find enclosed the Final Working Group Work Team report as approved by the Policy Process Steering Committee. I am also attaching for the Council’s review a redline of the report that compares the Final to the Interim Report that came out prior to the Brussels meeting. The changes reflect public comments to the Interim report plus changes made as a result of questions raised by the PPSC as addressed by the Working Group Work Team. All of the constituencies/Stakeholder Groups represented on the PPSC approved the final report with the exception of the Business Constituency, who did not vote. The ALAC representative, who does not officially get a vote, also expressed his approval of the report.
A non-official informal poll was taken within the PPSC as to whether we should recommend to the Council that it put the final report out for public comment before review/approval given the changes that have been made since the last time the report was out for comment. The Registries, IPC and ISP representatives believe the GNSO Council should place the report out for comment; the Registrars did not think it was necessary, but did not object; the BC did not vote; and the NCSG opposed making this recommendation to the Council (believing that the Council should decide for itself what it wanted to do).
The motion I present below acknowledges receipt of report and requests that the report go out for comment (should the council elect to put it out for comment).
I would be happy to answer any questions.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Motion to Acknowledge the Receipt of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and Initiate a Public Comment Period
WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework (see GNSO Council Improvements Implementation Plan; http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implement...) for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182 <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm>);
WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and thePolicy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements;
WHEREAS, the PPSC established two work teams, including the Working Group Work Team (WG WT), which was chartered to develop a new GNSO Working Group Model that improves inclusiveness, improves effectiveness, and improves efficiency;
WHEREAS, the WG WT completed its deliberations and forwarded the GNSO Working Group Guidelines to the PPSC on 1 November 2010;
WHEREAS, the PPSC reviewed and approved the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on 20 December 2010 [includelink to GNSO Working Group Guidelines once posted] and forwarded the report to the GNSO Council on 30 December 2010;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED that the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as delivered by the PPSC and directs ICANN Staff to commence a twenty-one (21) day public comment period on the GNSO Working Group Guidelines.
RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council shall take action on the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as soon as possible after the end of the public comment period.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
<GNSO WG Guidelines - FINAL - 10 December 2010.pdf><GNSO_WG_Guideline_Revised_Final_Redline_10 December 2010.doc>
Thanks Jeff. That being the case, I would like to propose an amendment to your motion. I would propose that a 3rd resolved clause be added stating the following: RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council recommends that a one-page summary of the WG Guidelines be drafted by ICANN Staff in order to serve as a primer to the full document for potential WG members. The one-page summary should be approved by the PPSC before being submitted to the GNSO Council. I hope you can consider this amendment friendly. Thanks, Stéphane Le 10 janv. 2011 à 17:32, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
Stephane,
I think you have some good points and I completely understand the notion of having too much to read for what seems like fairly simple concepts. The PPSC did not discuss this issue and I am not sure to what extent the WG-WT discussed.
However, I believe that once the principles are approved by the Council, that we (the Council) can direct the staff to draft up a shorter summary (with encouragement to read the full report). I suppose the PPSC could review the summary to make sure it is in line with the final report. We could also when it comes time to approve the principles in our motion direct that staff hold a short session at the start of every Working Group to educate Working Group members on the basics for those interested.
Hope that helps.
Best regards,
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 10:17 AM To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: 'GNSO Council' Subject: Re: [council] Final Working Group Work Team Report & Motion
Hi Jeff,
Because these WG guidelines are intended for use by WG members (see 1.3) I find it surprising that they would be expected to read a 35 page document in order to get a grasp on the way ICANN recommends they should set-up and run their WG.
I do not find it realistic to expect volunteer members of a WG, not all of which would necessarily be very clued on up ICANN processes (nor should we expect them to be if we are to encourage broader community participation), to have to tackle such a report. As such, I fear that what we will end up seeing happening is that people do not read these guidelines and do not profit from them.
With regards to this, has the idea of producing a one-page summary of the guidelines been discussed by the PPSC at all? The idea would be to have some kind of WG guideline "primer" which could help people understand what is expected of them as part of a GNSO WG.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 2 janv. 2011 à 03:53, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
All,
Please find enclosed the Final Working Group Work Team report as approved by the Policy Process Steering Committee. I am also attaching for the Council’s review a redline of the report that compares the Final to the Interim Report that came out prior to the Brussels meeting. The changes reflect public comments to the Interim report plus changes made as a result of questions raised by the PPSC as addressed by the Working Group Work Team. All of the constituencies/Stakeholder Groups represented on the PPSC approved the final report with the exception of the Business Constituency, who did not vote. The ALAC representative, who does not officially get a vote, also expressed his approval of the report.
A non-official informal poll was taken within the PPSC as to whether we should recommend to the Council that it put the final report out for public comment before review/approval given the changes that have been made since the last time the report was out for comment. The Registries, IPC and ISP representatives believe the GNSO Council should place the report out for comment; the Registrars did not think it was necessary, but did not object; the BC did not vote; and the NCSG opposed making this recommendation to the Council (believing that the Council should decide for itself what it wanted to do).
The motion I present below acknowledges receipt of report and requests that the report go out for comment (should the council elect to put it out for comment).
I would be happy to answer any questions.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Motion to Acknowledge the Receipt of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and Initiate a Public Comment Period
WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework (see GNSO Council Improvements Implementation Plan; http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implement...) for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182 <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm>);
WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and thePolicy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements;
WHEREAS, the PPSC established two work teams, including the Working Group Work Team (WG WT), which was chartered to develop a new GNSO Working Group Model that improves inclusiveness, improves effectiveness, and improves efficiency;
WHEREAS, the WG WT completed its deliberations and forwarded the GNSO Working Group Guidelines to the PPSC on 1 November 2010;
WHEREAS, the PPSC reviewed and approved the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on 20 December 2010 [includelink to GNSO Working Group Guidelines once posted] and forwarded the report to the GNSO Council on 30 December 2010;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED that the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as delivered by the PPSC and directs ICANN Staff to commence a twenty-one (21) day public comment period on the GNSO Working Group Guidelines.
RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council shall take action on the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as soon as possible after the end of the public comment period.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
<GNSO WG Guidelines - FINAL - 10 December 2010.pdf><GNSO_WG_Guideline_Revised_Final_Redline_10 December 2010.doc>
I believe that this would be friendly if we can remove the word "one-page" and replace with something like "short and concise.". Totally understand and agree with the concept, but the words "one-page" may be too limiting. If you can accept that, I will gladly accept the rest as friendly. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Vice President, Law & Policy NeuStar, Inc. Jeff.Neuman@neustar.biz From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 09:58 AM To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: 'GNSO Council' <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Final Working Group Work Team Report & Motion Thanks Jeff. That being the case, I would like to propose an amendment to your motion. I would propose that a 3rd resolved clause be added stating the following: RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council recommends that a one-page summary of the WG Guidelines be drafted by ICANN Staff in order to serve as a primer to the full document for potential WG members. The one-page summary should be approved by the PPSC before being submitted to the GNSO Council. I hope you can consider this amendment friendly. Thanks, Stéphane Le 10 janv. 2011 à 17:32, Neuman, Jeff a écrit : Stephane, I think you have some good points and I completely understand the notion of having too much to read for what seems like fairly simple concepts. The PPSC did not discuss this issue and I am not sure to what extent the WG-WT discussed. However, I believe that once the principles are approved by the Council, that we (the Council) can direct the staff to draft up a shorter summary (with encouragement to read the full report). I suppose the PPSC could review the summary to make sure it is in line with the final report. We could also when it comes time to approve the principles in our motion direct that staff hold a short session at the start of every Working Group to educate Working Group members on the basics for those interested. Hope that helps. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 10:17 AM To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: 'GNSO Council' Subject: Re: [council] Final Working Group Work Team Report & Motion Hi Jeff, Because these WG guidelines are intended for use by WG members (see 1.3) I find it surprising that they would be expected to read a 35 page document in order to get a grasp on the way ICANN recommends they should set-up and run their WG. I do not find it realistic to expect volunteer members of a WG, not all of which would necessarily be very clued on up ICANN processes (nor should we expect them to be if we are to encourage broader community participation), to have to tackle such a report. As such, I fear that what we will end up seeing happening is that people do not read these guidelines and do not profit from them. With regards to this, has the idea of producing a one-page summary of the guidelines been discussed by the PPSC at all? The idea would be to have some kind of WG guideline "primer" which could help people understand what is expected of them as part of a GNSO WG. Thanks, Stéphane Le 2 janv. 2011 à 03:53, Neuman, Jeff a écrit : All, Please find enclosed the Final Working Group Work Team report as approved by the Policy Process Steering Committee. I am also attaching for the Council’s review a redline of the report that compares the Final to the Interim Report that came out prior to the Brussels meeting. The changes reflect public comments to the Interim report plus changes made as a result of questions raised by the PPSC as addressed by the Working Group Work Team. All of the constituencies/Stakeholder Groups represented on the PPSC approved the final report with the exception of the Business Constituency, who did not vote. The ALAC representative, who does not officially get a vote, also expressed his approval of the report. A non-official informal poll was taken within the PPSC as to whether we should recommend to the Council that it put the final report out for public comment before review/approval given the changes that have been made since the last time the report was out for comment. The Registries, IPC and ISP representatives believe the GNSO Council should place the report out for comment; the Registrars did not think it was necessary, but did not object; the BC did not vote; and the NCSG opposed making this recommendation to the Council (believing that the Council should decide for itself what it wanted to do). The motion I present below acknowledges receipt of report and requests that the report go out for comment (should the council elect to put it out for comment). I would be happy to answer any questions. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Motion to Acknowledge the Receipt of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and Initiate a Public Comment Period WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework (see GNSO Council Improvements Implementation Plan; http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implement...) for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182 <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm>); WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and thePolicy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements; WHEREAS, the PPSC established two work teams, including the Working Group Work Team (WG WT), which was chartered to develop a new GNSO Working Group Model that improves inclusiveness, improves effectiveness, and improves efficiency; WHEREAS, the WG WT completed its deliberations and forwarded the GNSO Working Group Guidelines to the PPSC on 1 November 2010; WHEREAS, the PPSC reviewed and approved the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on 20 December 2010 [includelink to GNSO Working Group Guidelines once posted] and forwarded the report to the GNSO Council on 30 December 2010; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED that the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as delivered by the PPSC and directs ICANN Staff to commence a twenty-one (21) day public comment period on the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council shall take action on the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as soon as possible after the end of the public comment period. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman@neustar.biz<mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. <GNSO WG Guidelines - FINAL - 10 December 2010.pdf><GNSO_WG_Guideline_Revised_Final_Redline_10 December 2010.doc>
Thanks Jeff. So how about this as the full additional Resolve: RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council recommends that a concise summary of the WG Guidelines be drafted by ICANN Staff, following approval of the GNSO Working Guidelines by the GNSO Council, in order to serve as a primer to the full document for potential WG members. The one-page summary should be approved by the PPSC before being submitted to the GNSO Council. Stéphane Le 11 janv. 2011 à 16:18, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
I believe that this would be friendly if we can remove the word "one-page" and replace with something like "short and concise.". Totally understand and agree with the concept, but the words "one-page" may be too limiting. If you can accept that, I will gladly accept the rest as friendly.
Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Vice President, Law & Policy NeuStar, Inc. Jeff.Neuman@neustar.biz
From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 09:58 AM To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: 'GNSO Council' <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Final Working Group Work Team Report & Motion
Thanks Jeff.
That being the case, I would like to propose an amendment to your motion.
I would propose that a 3rd resolved clause be added stating the following:
RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council recommends that a one-page summary of the WG Guidelines be drafted by ICANN Staff in order to serve as a primer to the full document for potential WG members. The one-page summary should be approved by the PPSC before being submitted to the GNSO Council.
I hope you can consider this amendment friendly.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 10 janv. 2011 à 17:32, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
Stephane,
I think you have some good points and I completely understand the notion of having too much to read for what seems like fairly simple concepts. The PPSC did not discuss this issue and I am not sure to what extent the WG-WT discussed.
However, I believe that once the principles are approved by the Council, that we (the Council) can direct the staff to draft up a shorter summary (with encouragement to read the full report). I suppose the PPSC could review the summary to make sure it is in line with the final report. We could also when it comes time to approve the principles in our motion direct that staff hold a short session at the start of every Working Group to educate Working Group members on the basics for those interested.
Hope that helps.
Best regards,
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 10:17 AM To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: 'GNSO Council' Subject: Re: [council] Final Working Group Work Team Report & Motion
Hi Jeff,
Because these WG guidelines are intended for use by WG members (see 1.3) I find it surprising that they would be expected to read a 35 page document in order to get a grasp on the way ICANN recommends they should set-up and run their WG.
I do not find it realistic to expect volunteer members of a WG, not all of which would necessarily be very clued on up ICANN processes (nor should we expect them to be if we are to encourage broader community participation), to have to tackle such a report. As such, I fear that what we will end up seeing happening is that people do not read these guidelines and do not profit from them.
With regards to this, has the idea of producing a one-page summary of the guidelines been discussed by the PPSC at all? The idea would be to have some kind of WG guideline "primer" which could help people understand what is expected of them as part of a GNSO WG.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 2 janv. 2011 à 03:53, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
All,
Please find enclosed the Final Working Group Work Team report as approved by the Policy Process Steering Committee. I am also attaching for the Council’s review a redline of the report that compares the Final to the Interim Report that came out prior to the Brussels meeting. The changes reflect public comments to the Interim report plus changes made as a result of questions raised by the PPSC as addressed by the Working Group Work Team. All of the constituencies/Stakeholder Groups represented on the PPSC approved the final report with the exception of the Business Constituency, who did not vote. The ALAC representative, who does not officially get a vote, also expressed his approval of the report.
A non-official informal poll was taken within the PPSC as to whether we should recommend to the Council that it put the final report out for public comment before review/approval given the changes that have been made since the last time the report was out for comment. The Registries, IPC and ISP representatives believe the GNSO Council should place the report out for comment; the Registrars did not think it was necessary, but did not object; the BC did not vote; and the NCSG opposed making this recommendation to the Council (believing that the Council should decide for itself what it wanted to do).
The motion I present below acknowledges receipt of report and requests that the report go out for comment (should the council elect to put it out for comment).
I would be happy to answer any questions.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Motion to Acknowledge the Receipt of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and Initiate a Public Comment Period
WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework (see GNSO Council Improvements Implementation Plan; http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implement...) for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182 <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm>);
WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and thePolicy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements;
WHEREAS, the PPSC established two work teams, including the Working Group Work Team (WG WT), which was chartered to develop a new GNSO Working Group Model that improves inclusiveness, improves effectiveness, and improves efficiency;
WHEREAS, the WG WT completed its deliberations and forwarded the GNSO Working Group Guidelines to the PPSC on 1 November 2010;
WHEREAS, the PPSC reviewed and approved the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on 20 December 2010 [includelink to GNSO Working Group Guidelines once posted] and forwarded the report to the GNSO Council on 30 December 2010;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED that the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as delivered by the PPSC and directs ICANN Staff to commence a twenty-one (21) day public comment period on the GNSO Working Group Guidelines.
RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council shall take action on the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as soon as possible after the end of the public comment period.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
<GNSO WG Guidelines - FINAL - 10 December 2010.pdf><GNSO_WG_Guideline_Revised_Final_Redline_10 December 2010.doc>
Sorry, I missed the second reference to a one-pager. This should read : RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council recommends that a concise summary of the WG Guidelines be drafted by ICANN Staff, following approval of the GNSO Working Guidelines by the GNSO Council, in order to serve as a primer to the full document for potential WG members. The summary should be approved by the PPSC before being submitted to the GNSO Council. Stéphane Le 11 janv. 2011 à 16:25, Stéphane Van Gelder a écrit :
Thanks Jeff.
So how about this as the full additional Resolve:
RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council recommends that a concise summary of the WG Guidelines be drafted by ICANN Staff, following approval of the GNSO Working Guidelines by the GNSO Council, in order to serve as a primer to the full document for potential WG members. The one-page summary should be approved by the PPSC before being submitted to the GNSO Council.
Stéphane
Le 11 janv. 2011 à 16:18, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
I believe that this would be friendly if we can remove the word "one-page" and replace with something like "short and concise.". Totally understand and agree with the concept, but the words "one-page" may be too limiting. If you can accept that, I will gladly accept the rest as friendly.
Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Vice President, Law & Policy NeuStar, Inc. Jeff.Neuman@neustar.biz
From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 09:58 AM To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: 'GNSO Council' <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Final Working Group Work Team Report & Motion
Thanks Jeff.
That being the case, I would like to propose an amendment to your motion.
I would propose that a 3rd resolved clause be added stating the following:
RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council recommends that a one-page summary of the WG Guidelines be drafted by ICANN Staff in order to serve as a primer to the full document for potential WG members. The one-page summary should be approved by the PPSC before being submitted to the GNSO Council.
I hope you can consider this amendment friendly.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 10 janv. 2011 à 17:32, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
Stephane,
I think you have some good points and I completely understand the notion of having too much to read for what seems like fairly simple concepts. The PPSC did not discuss this issue and I am not sure to what extent the WG-WT discussed.
However, I believe that once the principles are approved by the Council, that we (the Council) can direct the staff to draft up a shorter summary (with encouragement to read the full report). I suppose the PPSC could review the summary to make sure it is in line with the final report. We could also when it comes time to approve the principles in our motion direct that staff hold a short session at the start of every Working Group to educate Working Group members on the basics for those interested.
Hope that helps.
Best regards,
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 10:17 AM To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: 'GNSO Council' Subject: Re: [council] Final Working Group Work Team Report & Motion
Hi Jeff,
Because these WG guidelines are intended for use by WG members (see 1.3) I find it surprising that they would be expected to read a 35 page document in order to get a grasp on the way ICANN recommends they should set-up and run their WG.
I do not find it realistic to expect volunteer members of a WG, not all of which would necessarily be very clued on up ICANN processes (nor should we expect them to be if we are to encourage broader community participation), to have to tackle such a report. As such, I fear that what we will end up seeing happening is that people do not read these guidelines and do not profit from them.
With regards to this, has the idea of producing a one-page summary of the guidelines been discussed by the PPSC at all? The idea would be to have some kind of WG guideline "primer" which could help people understand what is expected of them as part of a GNSO WG.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 2 janv. 2011 à 03:53, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
All,
Please find enclosed the Final Working Group Work Team report as approved by the Policy Process Steering Committee. I am also attaching for the Council’s review a redline of the report that compares the Final to the Interim Report that came out prior to the Brussels meeting. The changes reflect public comments to the Interim report plus changes made as a result of questions raised by the PPSC as addressed by the Working Group Work Team. All of the constituencies/Stakeholder Groups represented on the PPSC approved the final report with the exception of the Business Constituency, who did not vote. The ALAC representative, who does not officially get a vote, also expressed his approval of the report.
A non-official informal poll was taken within the PPSC as to whether we should recommend to the Council that it put the final report out for public comment before review/approval given the changes that have been made since the last time the report was out for comment. The Registries, IPC and ISP representatives believe the GNSO Council should place the report out for comment; the Registrars did not think it was necessary, but did not object; the BC did not vote; and the NCSG opposed making this recommendation to the Council (believing that the Council should decide for itself what it wanted to do).
The motion I present below acknowledges receipt of report and requests that the report go out for comment (should the council elect to put it out for comment).
I would be happy to answer any questions.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Motion to Acknowledge the Receipt of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and Initiate a Public Comment Period
WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework (see GNSO Council Improvements Implementation Plan; http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implement...) for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182 <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm>);
WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and thePolicy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements;
WHEREAS, the PPSC established two work teams, including the Working Group Work Team (WG WT), which was chartered to develop a new GNSO Working Group Model that improves inclusiveness, improves effectiveness, and improves efficiency;
WHEREAS, the WG WT completed its deliberations and forwarded the GNSO Working Group Guidelines to the PPSC on 1 November 2010;
WHEREAS, the PPSC reviewed and approved the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on 20 December 2010 [includelink to GNSO Working Group Guidelines once posted] and forwarded the report to the GNSO Council on 30 December 2010;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED that the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as delivered by the PPSC and directs ICANN Staff to commence a twenty-one (21) day public comment period on the GNSO Working Group Guidelines.
RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council shall take action on the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as soon as possible after the end of the public comment period.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
<GNSO WG Guidelines - FINAL - 10 December 2010.pdf><GNSO_WG_Guideline_Revised_Final_Redline_10 December 2010.doc>
I agree with this and consider it friendly. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Vice President, Law & Policy NeuStar, Inc. Jeff.Neuman@neustar.biz From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 10:34 AM To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Final Working Group Work Team Report & Motion Sorry, I missed the second reference to a one-pager. This should read : RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council recommends that a concise summary of the WG Guidelines be drafted by ICANN Staff, following approval of the GNSO Working Guidelines by the GNSO Council, in order to serve as a primer to the full document for potential WG members. The summary should be approved by the PPSC before being submitted to the GNSO Council. Stéphane Le 11 janv. 2011 à 16:25, Stéphane Van Gelder a écrit : Thanks Jeff. So how about this as the full additional Resolve: RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council recommends that a concise summary of the WG Guidelines be drafted by ICANN Staff, following approval of the GNSO Working Guidelines by the GNSO Council, in order to serve as a primer to the full document for potential WG members. The one-page summary should be approved by the PPSC before being submitted to the GNSO Council. Stéphane Le 11 janv. 2011 à 16:18, Neuman, Jeff a écrit : I believe that this would be friendly if we can remove the word "one-page" and replace with something like "short and concise.". Totally understand and agree with the concept, but the words "one-page" may be too limiting. If you can accept that, I will gladly accept the rest as friendly. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Vice President, Law & Policy NeuStar, Inc. Jeff.Neuman@neustar.biz<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.biz> From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 09:58 AM To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: 'GNSO Council' <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Final Working Group Work Team Report & Motion Thanks Jeff. That being the case, I would like to propose an amendment to your motion. I would propose that a 3rd resolved clause be added stating the following: RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council recommends that a one-page summary of the WG Guidelines be drafted by ICANN Staff in order to serve as a primer to the full document for potential WG members. The one-page summary should be approved by the PPSC before being submitted to the GNSO Council. I hope you can consider this amendment friendly. Thanks, Stéphane Le 10 janv. 2011 à 17:32, Neuman, Jeff a écrit : Stephane, I think you have some good points and I completely understand the notion of having too much to read for what seems like fairly simple concepts. The PPSC did not discuss this issue and I am not sure to what extent the WG-WT discussed. However, I believe that once the principles are approved by the Council, that we (the Council) can direct the staff to draft up a shorter summary (with encouragement to read the full report). I suppose the PPSC could review the summary to make sure it is in line with the final report. We could also when it comes time to approve the principles in our motion direct that staff hold a short session at the start of every Working Group to educate Working Group members on the basics for those interested. Hope that helps. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 10:17 AM To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: 'GNSO Council' Subject: Re: [council] Final Working Group Work Team Report & Motion Hi Jeff, Because these WG guidelines are intended for use by WG members (see 1.3) I find it surprising that they would be expected to read a 35 page document in order to get a grasp on the way ICANN recommends they should set-up and run their WG. I do not find it realistic to expect volunteer members of a WG, not all of which would necessarily be very clued on up ICANN processes (nor should we expect them to be if we are to encourage broader community participation), to have to tackle such a report. As such, I fear that what we will end up seeing happening is that people do not read these guidelines and do not profit from them. With regards to this, has the idea of producing a one-page summary of the guidelines been discussed by the PPSC at all? The idea would be to have some kind of WG guideline "primer" which could help people understand what is expected of them as part of a GNSO WG. Thanks, Stéphane Le 2 janv. 2011 à 03:53, Neuman, Jeff a écrit : All, Please find enclosed the Final Working Group Work Team report as approved by the Policy Process Steering Committee. I am also attaching for the Council’s review a redline of the report that compares the Final to the Interim Report that came out prior to the Brussels meeting. The changes reflect public comments to the Interim report plus changes made as a result of questions raised by the PPSC as addressed by the Working Group Work Team. All of the constituencies/Stakeholder Groups represented on the PPSC approved the final report with the exception of the Business Constituency, who did not vote. The ALAC representative, who does not officially get a vote, also expressed his approval of the report. A non-official informal poll was taken within the PPSC as to whether we should recommend to the Council that it put the final report out for public comment before review/approval given the changes that have been made since the last time the report was out for comment. The Registries, IPC and ISP representatives believe the GNSO Council should place the report out for comment; the Registrars did not think it was necessary, but did not object; the BC did not vote; and the NCSG opposed making this recommendation to the Council (believing that the Council should decide for itself what it wanted to do). The motion I present below acknowledges receipt of report and requests that the report go out for comment (should the council elect to put it out for comment). I would be happy to answer any questions. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Motion to Acknowledge the Receipt of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and Initiate a Public Comment Period WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework (see GNSO Council Improvements Implementation Plan; http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implement...) for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182 <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm>); WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and thePolicy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements; WHEREAS, the PPSC established two work teams, including the Working Group Work Team (WG WT), which was chartered to develop a new GNSO Working Group Model that improves inclusiveness, improves effectiveness, and improves efficiency; WHEREAS, the WG WT completed its deliberations and forwarded the GNSO Working Group Guidelines to the PPSC on 1 November 2010; WHEREAS, the PPSC reviewed and approved the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on 20 December 2010 [includelink to GNSO Working Group Guidelines once posted] and forwarded the report to the GNSO Council on 30 December 2010; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED that the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as delivered by the PPSC and directs ICANN Staff to commence a twenty-one (21) day public comment period on the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council shall take action on the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as soon as possible after the end of the public comment period. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman@neustar.biz<mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. <GNSO WG Guidelines - FINAL - 10 December 2010.pdf><GNSO_WG_Guideline_Revised_Final_Redline_10 December 2010.doc>
Thanks Jeff. Glen, please update the wiki with this amended motion. Thanks. Stéphane Le 11 janv. 2011 à 16:35, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
I agree with this and consider it friendly.
Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Vice President, Law & Policy NeuStar, Inc. Jeff.Neuman@neustar.biz
From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 10:34 AM To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Final Working Group Work Team Report & Motion
Sorry, I missed the second reference to a one-pager. This should read :
RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council recommends that a concise summary of the WG Guidelines be drafted by ICANN Staff, following approval of the GNSO Working Guidelines by the GNSO Council, in order to serve as a primer to the full document for potential WG members. The summary should be approved by the PPSC before being submitted to the GNSO Council.
Stéphane
Le 11 janv. 2011 à 16:25, Stéphane Van Gelder a écrit :
Thanks Jeff.
So how about this as the full additional Resolve:
RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council recommends that a concise summary of the WG Guidelines be drafted by ICANN Staff, following approval of the GNSO Working Guidelines by the GNSO Council, in order to serve as a primer to the full document for potential WG members. The one-page summary should be approved by the PPSC before being submitted to the GNSO Council.
Stéphane
Le 11 janv. 2011 à 16:18, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
I believe that this would be friendly if we can remove the word "one-page" and replace with something like "short and concise.". Totally understand and agree with the concept, but the words "one-page" may be too limiting. If you can accept that, I will gladly accept the rest as friendly.
Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Vice President, Law & Policy NeuStar, Inc. Jeff.Neuman@neustar.biz
From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 09:58 AM To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: 'GNSO Council' <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Final Working Group Work Team Report & Motion
Thanks Jeff.
That being the case, I would like to propose an amendment to your motion.
I would propose that a 3rd resolved clause be added stating the following:
RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council recommends that a one-page summary of the WG Guidelines be drafted by ICANN Staff in order to serve as a primer to the full document for potential WG members. The one-page summary should be approved by the PPSC before being submitted to the GNSO Council.
I hope you can consider this amendment friendly.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 10 janv. 2011 à 17:32, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
Stephane,
I think you have some good points and I completely understand the notion of having too much to read for what seems like fairly simple concepts. The PPSC did not discuss this issue and I am not sure to what extent the WG-WT discussed.
However, I believe that once the principles are approved by the Council, that we (the Council) can direct the staff to draft up a shorter summary (with encouragement to read the full report). I suppose the PPSC could review the summary to make sure it is in line with the final report. We could also when it comes time to approve the principles in our motion direct that staff hold a short session at the start of every Working Group to educate Working Group members on the basics for those interested.
Hope that helps.
Best regards,
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 10:17 AM To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: 'GNSO Council' Subject: Re: [council] Final Working Group Work Team Report & Motion
Hi Jeff,
Because these WG guidelines are intended for use by WG members (see 1.3) I find it surprising that they would be expected to read a 35 page document in order to get a grasp on the way ICANN recommends they should set-up and run their WG.
I do not find it realistic to expect volunteer members of a WG, not all of which would necessarily be very clued on up ICANN processes (nor should we expect them to be if we are to encourage broader community participation), to have to tackle such a report. As such, I fear that what we will end up seeing happening is that people do not read these guidelines and do not profit from them.
With regards to this, has the idea of producing a one-page summary of the guidelines been discussed by the PPSC at all? The idea would be to have some kind of WG guideline "primer" which could help people understand what is expected of them as part of a GNSO WG.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 2 janv. 2011 à 03:53, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
All,
Please find enclosed the Final Working Group Work Team report as approved by the Policy Process Steering Committee. I am also attaching for the Council’s review a redline of the report that compares the Final to the Interim Report that came out prior to the Brussels meeting. The changes reflect public comments to the Interim report plus changes made as a result of questions raised by the PPSC as addressed by the Working Group Work Team. All of the constituencies/Stakeholder Groups represented on the PPSC approved the final report with the exception of the Business Constituency, who did not vote. The ALAC representative, who does not officially get a vote, also expressed his approval of the report.
A non-official informal poll was taken within the PPSC as to whether we should recommend to the Council that it put the final report out for public comment before review/approval given the changes that have been made since the last time the report was out for comment. The Registries, IPC and ISP representatives believe the GNSO Council should place the report out for comment; the Registrars did not think it was necessary, but did not object; the BC did not vote; and the NCSG opposed making this recommendation to the Council (believing that the Council should decide for itself what it wanted to do).
The motion I present below acknowledges receipt of report and requests that the report go out for comment (should the council elect to put it out for comment).
I would be happy to answer any questions.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Motion to Acknowledge the Receipt of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and Initiate a Public Comment Period
WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework (see GNSO Council Improvements Implementation Plan; http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implement...) for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182 <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm>);
WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and thePolicy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements;
WHEREAS, the PPSC established two work teams, including the Working Group Work Team (WG WT), which was chartered to develop a new GNSO Working Group Model that improves inclusiveness, improves effectiveness, and improves efficiency;
WHEREAS, the WG WT completed its deliberations and forwarded the GNSO Working Group Guidelines to the PPSC on 1 November 2010;
WHEREAS, the PPSC reviewed and approved the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on 20 December 2010 [includelink to GNSO Working Group Guidelines once posted] and forwarded the report to the GNSO Council on 30 December 2010;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED that the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as delivered by the PPSC and directs ICANN Staff to commence a twenty-one (21) day public comment period on the GNSO Working Group Guidelines.
RESOLVED FURTHER that the GNSO Council shall take action on the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as soon as possible after the end of the public comment period.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
<GNSO WG Guidelines - FINAL - 10 December 2010.pdf><GNSO_WG_Guideline_Revised_Final_Redline_10 December 2010.doc>
participants (3)
-
Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf -
Neuman, Jeff -
Stéphane Van Gelder