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

["Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP and IOC RC 
NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne

Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)

-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Andruff [randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm
To: 'Avri Doria' [avri@xxxxxxx]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
[gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx]
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed 
Revised Footnote


I support Avri's comments as well.  The Board's role is to commit policy
that has been developed through the bottom up process into rule by way of
resolution.  Although the history of the Board's actions to date might prove
otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN environment we should expect the Board
to conform to ICANN's basic principles.

I support the footnote amendment as proposed.

Kind regards,

RA

Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed
Revised Footnote


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<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: 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<http://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<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.
>
>