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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they have not 
actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP.  The g-council has 
used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers.  These are still g-council 
initiated PDPs.  Had the Board asked for the PDP, there never would have been a 
vote in g-council to initiate the PDP.  Specifically:

"
March 212 20120314-1
Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' Whois

Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois at its 
meeting on 22 September 2011 (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109);

....
"

"
November 2012 20121017-2
Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the Protection of 
Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs.

Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of whether 
ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of international 
organizations at the first and second levels in the New gTLD Program.

....
"

Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

"
Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report

Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing the GNSO 
Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. In the event 
the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the Board should provide a 
mechanism by which the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide 
information on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue 
Report.

....

Section 5. Initiation of the PDP

The Council may initiate the PDP as follows:

Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, within the 
timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. No vote is required 
for such action.
"

avri


On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:

> 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
> > 
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> >