Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever suspended a 
PDP that they mandated is an open question.  I expect they would either wait, 
question the postponement, or make one their preemptory decisions.  Since the 
Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - though they can - I do 
not think it is a critical issue at this point, and in any case think it is a 
separate issue from the suspension mechanism.  All other PDPs are g-council 
decsions, even if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs.

I am fine with the footnote. thanks.

avri



On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Anne and all,
>  
> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council decision 
> on suspension because you're expressing an expectation that the council 
> should follow a related board request. I think this could be the case 
> depending on a council debate following the board request but there is no 
> obligation to do so.
>  
> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by Julie?
>  
> Best regards 
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
> 
> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, 
> Anne
> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43
> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed 
> Revised Footnote
> 
> This makes sense.  Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board says, 
> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an answer - go 
> back to the drawing board,"  then that is what will happen? 
>  
> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN.  If GNSO can't work effectively and the Board 
> has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's "oasis" 
> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure increases to 
> take control away from ICANN. 
>  
> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up at the 
> GNSO level.
>  
> 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: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM
> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed 
> Revised Footnote
> 
> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public comment 
> since it merely clarifies the suspension.
> 
> jse
>  
> j. scott evans -  head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 
> 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>; 
> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> 
> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed 
> Revised Footnote
> 
> Thanks Anne.  Then, would you want "until further notice" to be deleted?  If 
> so, here's an amended text for all to review.  
> 
> Best regards,
> Julie
> 
> "Suspension is a STATED 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. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not 
> considered a suspension."
> 
> From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM
> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>, 
> Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed 
> Revised Footnote
> 
> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? If 
> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would not apply. 
> Anne
> 
> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx]
> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm
> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx [gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx]
> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed 
> Revised Footnote
> 
> Dear SCI members,
> 
> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a clarification to the 
> footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP.  Please 
> review the revised following text with the change in bold all caps:
> 
> "Suspension is a STATED 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."
> 
> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that the footnote 
> may be viewed in context.  
> 
> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is accepted by the 
> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period.
> 
> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if the SCI 
> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of Wednesday, 12 
> December.**
> 
> With best regards,
> 
> Julie
> 
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
> 
> 15.    Termination of PDP prior to Final Report
> 
> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] 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 orsuspension. 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 issignificantly impaired and unable to effectively 
> conclude its deliberations due to lack of volunteer participation. 
>  
> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its termination, the 
> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior to 
> conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above).
> 
> [1] Suspension is a STATED 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 furthernotice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of 
> the PDP is not considered a suspension.
>  
> 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.
> 
>