Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposed language to address suspending a PDP

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I bet you are right.  How could the g-council suspend something ordered by the 
Board, since they have not choice about initiating it in the first place.

I had a similar first reaction to the reasons, but since the g-council that 
approved the PDP, assuming other than a Board ordered PDP, would have to get a 
supermajority to suspend/kill, they would be attesting to the seriousness of 
that impasse or whatever.

avri

On 24 Jul 2012, at 18:06, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:

> My question would be whether GNSO actually has authority to suspend a PDP 
> that has been requested by the ICANN Board and if so, what is the source of 
> that authority?  I have not checked the By-Laws as to the prior existence of 
> the GNSO's authority to terminate a PDP so I don't know the origins of the 
> authority for the addition of "or suspend".
> 
> I am also concerned that the stated reasons seem to be very accepting of the 
> notion that we will experience completely ineffective PDP processes and that 
> seems counter to the spirit of the organization.  For example, if a PDP is 
> commenced on WhoIs, how easy will it be to reach a consensus on that one?  By 
> listing these examples, do we create a sort of justification for giving up on 
> an issue that seems too difficult?
> 
> Thank you,
> Anne
> 
> <image001.gif>Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
> Of Counsel
> Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700
> One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
> Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725
> AAikman@xxxxxxxxx • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman
> 
> 
> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
> 
> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
> intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the 
> agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or 
> copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
> was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the 
> original message.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 1:00 AM
> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposed language to address suspending a PDP
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Following on from the last meeting, please find hereby the proposed language 
> to be added to the PDP Manual to address suspending a PDP after initiation:
> 
> 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.
> This would be a modification of the current language of section 15 of the PDP 
> manual (modified language in bold).
> 
> Looking forward to receiving your feedback.
> 
> With best regards,
> 
> Marika
> 
> 
> For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to 
> www.lewisandroca.com.
> Phoenix (602)262-5311         Reno (775)823-2900
> Tucson (520)622-2090          Albuquerque (505)764-5400
> Las Vegas (702)949-8200               Silicon Valley (650)391-1380
>  This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to 
> which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended 
> recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to 
> the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, 
> distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have 
> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by 
> replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.
>  In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that 
> if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or 
> written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of 
> avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.