AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc]

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Marika!

Any further comments?
If not, I'll take this as basis for perhaps a concluding discussion on the 
subject in Toronto.

See the agenda for the SCI meeting in Toronto as well as the status table.

The suggested text resp. options for the various topics are as follows. Re 
"Raising an issue" Ron has already opted for #1.

Deferral of motions - Proposed Response

The SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice 
whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date in those 
situations where a formal process for a deferral is not specifically provided 
(for example, certain deferrals are foreseen as part of the GNSO PDP, see 
http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16dec11-en.pdf). The SCI 
discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to 
formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the 
current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter 
of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council.  For this 
reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure 
at this time.  However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state 
that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion 
in the affirmative. Given that the current informal practice is at the 
discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in 
considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or 
her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situation that may 
occur with regard to this informal practice.



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

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]^



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

Raising an issue, three possible approaches were identified during the last 
meeting:

 1.  Maintain status quo - which means only the GNSO Council or a group 
chartered by the GNSO Council can request an item to be reviewed by the SCI. 
Possibly consider communicating to other SO/ACs / individuals, that if there 
are issues they would like to see reviewed by the SCI, that they will need to 
channel these via the GNSO Council and/or a group chartered by the GNSO Council.
 2.  Add the possibility for other ICANN SO/ACs to make a direct request to the 
SCI - this would require a change to the SCI Charter and would need GNSO 
Council approval.
 3.  Add the possibility for any chartered group to make a direct request to 
the SCI - this would require a change to the SCI Charter and would need GNSO 
Council approval. Some also noted that a definition of 'chartered' would be 
needed as it is not clear whether SO/ACs are chartered.
Members are encouraged to share their views on these three options and/or 
identify any other options that should be considered to address this issue 
ahead of the next meeting.



Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich



________________________________
Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Ray Fassett
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 27. September 2012 17:59
An: 'Aikman-Scalese, Anne'; 'Marika Konings'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: For your review - proposed response 
deferral of motions

I agree with Anne on both counts:  It is well drafted and clear and will also 
defer to J. Scott as to substance.

Ray

From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:18 AM
To: 'Marika Konings'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: For your review - proposed response 
deferral of motions

Thanks Marika.  I'll defer to J. Scott as to substance, but wanted to remark I 
believe this is well-drafted and clear.  Unfortunately I cannot make the call 
today due to a meeting at the McCarthy Institute.  I'll listen to the 
reccording later to stay abreast.  Thank you, Anne

[cid:541500116@04102012-08BC]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<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx> * 
www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://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>
 
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx]>
 On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 12:59 AM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For your review - proposed response deferral 
of motions
Dear All,

In relation to the issue of deferral of motions, please find below the latest 
version of the proposed response to the GNSO Council for review / approval on 
today's SCI meeting.

With best regards,

Marika

Deferral of motions - Proposed Response

The SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice 
whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date in those 
situations where a formal process for a deferral is not specifically provided 
(for example, certain deferrals are foreseen as part of the GNSO PDP, see 
http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16dec11-en.pdf). The SCI 
discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to 
formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the 
current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter 
of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council.  For this 
reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure 
at this time.  However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state 
that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion 
in the affirmative. Given that the current informal practice is at the 
discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in 
considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or 
her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situation that may 
occur with regard to this informal practice.



________________________________

For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to 
www.lewisandroca.com<http://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.

Attachment: SCI agenda.doc
Description: SCI agenda.doc

Attachment: SCI Status List_20121003.xls
Description: SCI Status List_20121003.xls