RE: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For review - proposed language to address suspending a PDP

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ron 
 I want to first thank you for your role and leadership in SCI [and shortly 
will ask for more] and to also now add Angie to our thanks.
Many BC members are not aware of the critical importance of this 'group' and I 
will actually now that I think of it, ask Ron and Angie to think about a way to 
explain the group and their role. It is subtle; important, and structurally 
invisible -- which means: incredibly important. [So plan for a 20 minute slot 
in Toronto's schedule for one of the BC meetings]. 
:-) 
I also want to take this opportunity to thank Ron for initially taking on this 
role for us; and then voluntarily saying to the Chair: I'd like to add in a 
colleague/let's start to explan our BC understanding.  Ron invited volunteers, 
and Angie, as a new member,jumped into the deep end of the ocean, so to speak.  
We sometimes forget to thank our colleagues who do this kind of hard work, and 
critical work, so I want to highlight your role: Ron and Angie. [And I am 
hoping that some of you who may have limited time, might consider if you can 
collaborate, or 'shadow' another colleague, so we keep expanding our 
participation but not overburden newcomers or those with very limited time.] 
Importance of SCI:It's not policy development but it affects the ability to 
develop informed and balanced policy: it is about various processes: it is a 
building block and essential: 
The SCI will potentially end up as a critical player in the debate about GNSO 
Review; GNSO Review as Adm priority/plus priority and GNSO Review/as precurser 
to restructuring. 
The BC's positions about whether restructuring is needed now are conveyed in 
the Chair's Letter to the Board Chair: "NOT NOW. Improve services to existing 
Constituencies/SGS and build.
GNSO review can be an adm review, but totally separate from discussions about 
restructuring of GNSO groups or GNSO. "


Sometimes groups that are seemingly about structure or process can be captured 
and consumed and create unintended consequences, by well meaning players. 
The BC is fortunate to have a seasoned leader in Ron, who is now joined by 
Angie, building on our contributions and participation and to quickly stepping 
up to all the complex challenges that consume discussions in a group like this. 
I know we don't thank you enough.  
Bene, please help me add Ron and Angie to our agenda for Toronto?
But for this particular topic, I want to thank you for highlighting this; and 
urge others to agree, or disagree with me on this issue.  What works best is 
when you in fact to question whether we are getting it right, on your behalf on 
issues like this. I know that Ron and Angie want your feedback.  
We are strongest when we debate and examine and understand.  And then are 
supported by such articulate leaders as Ron and Angie. 

Marilyn Cade, BC Chair

From: randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For review - proposed 
language to address suspending a PDP
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:51:52 -0400


















Marilyn
and all,

 

Prior
to this new policy change, there was no rule regarding ‘suspension’,
so it was left to the Council Chair to make a determination.  Given no
guidelines, suspensions fell under the Chair’s prerogative. This
amendment sets rules for the Chair to utilize if/when a suspension is
requested.

 

In
response to your question about "blocking" a suspension, the key
aspect is this language: The GNSO Council
may terminate or suspend* a PDP prior to the publication of a Final Report only 
for significant cause, upon a motion that passes
with a Supermajority Vote in favour of termination or suspension.


 

Suspensions
can only occur IF it is for significant cause AND with a Supermajority Vote. 
That, in my view, provides the safeguards that the BC should be looking for.

 

To
date we have had, as far as I am aware, only one request for suspension.

 

I
am happy to go back to the SCI with a request that we ask staff to provide the
SCI with a ‘Suspensions Report’ 12 months after GNSO Council
approval of this amendment.  A one year review of all SCI recommendations should
be a standard operating procedure for that body.  Thanks for that input,
Marilyn.

 

Kind
regards,

 

RA

 

Ronald
N. Andruff

RNA
Partners, Inc.

 

 

 

 

-----Original
Message-----

From: Marilyn Cade
[mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx] 

Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 6:12 PM

To: Ron Andruff ; Bc GNSO list 

Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For review - proposed
language to address suspending a PDP

 

We
need advice. What are implications? Suspending is "okay" if we can
block suspension is we disagree. 

 

I
can't read materially. But do read as much as I can. 

Can
you and Angie make a two sentence case why I shld support this? 

 

I
am suspicious - just a bit- abt why this. But recognize "suspend" is
not "cancel". Shld suspension have a 3, 6, 9, 12 month "revisit?


Sent
via BlackBerry by AT&T

 

-----Original
Message-----

From:
Ron Andruff <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Date:
Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:16:15 

To:
<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>

Subject:
[bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For review - proposed

 language
to address suspending a PDP

 

 

 

Dear
Fellow BC Members, 

 


On
behalf of Angie Graves and myself (BC SCI reps), I am forwarding (see below)
the Standing Committee on Implementation's recommendation on suspension of a
PDP that will be sent to the GNSO Council for approval once the SCI signs off.
 If any BC members have opinions, comments or questions on this matter,
please bring them to the list as soon as possible.  Hearing no comments,
Angie and I will give BC approval to this amendment in the PDP Manual. 

 


Thank
you. 

 


RA


 


 

Ronald
N. Andruff 

RNA
Partners, Inc. 

 


 

 

----------------

 

From:
owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings

Sent:
Wednesday, September 19, 2012 10:37 AM

To:
gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx

Subject:
[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For review - proposed language to address suspending a
PDP 

 


 

Dear
All, 

 

 


 

As
discussed during the last meeting, please find below the proposed modifications
(in bold) to the PDP Manual to address suspension of a PDP. As with any changes
to the GNSO Operating Procedures of which the PDP Manual is part, once approved
by the SCI, these would need to be put out for public comment for a minimum of
21 days followed by GNSO Council approval. If you have any further comments /
edits, please share these with the mailing list. 

 

 


 

With
best regards, 

 

 


 

Marika


 

 


 

===============


 

 


 

Proposed
Language to address suspending a PDP (modification in bold of section 15 of the
PDP Manual) 

 

 


 

 

 

The
GNSO Council may terminate or suspend* a PDP prior to the publication
of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a
Supermajority Vote in favour of termination or suspension. The following
are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a premature
termination or suspension of a PDP: 

 

 

1.
Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to identify
recommendations or statements that have either the strong support or a
consensus of its members despite significant time and resources being dedicated
to the PDP; 

 

2.
Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the initiation of the PDP
that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary, or
warranting a suspension; or 

 

3.
Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for participation, the work
of the PDP Team is significantly impaired and unable to effectively conclude
its deliberations due to lack of volunteer participation. 

 

*
Suspension is a time interval during which there is a temporary cessation
of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council
until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not
considered a suspension. [to be included as a footnote]