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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Thanks.  I missed the RAA request being a Board PDP and forgot about the 
purpose of WHOIS one.

avri



On 9 Dec 2012, at 15:05, Marika Konings wrote:

> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the RAA
> ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation of an
> Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process (PDP) as
> quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a PDP) and the
> recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois ('hereby directs
> preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of collecting and
> maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions to improve accuracy
> and access to gTLD registration data, as part of a Board-initiated GNSO
> policy development process'). As pointed out by Avri, for PDPs initiated
> by the ICANN Board, there is no intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the
> PDP automatically proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the
> case of a Board initiated PDP, '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'. In addition to
> this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO Council meet at every ICANN
> meeting where there is another opportunity to discuss and/or express
> concerns with regard to Board requested PDPs. For example, in relation to
> the RAA PDP, as a result of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO
> Council it was agreed to 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were
> near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be
> included in the PDP.
> 
> With best regards,
> 
> Marika
> 
> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx" <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding.
>> 
>> 
>> Best regards
>> Wolf-Ulrich
>> 
>> 
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria
>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39
>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a
>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
>> 
>> 
>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>>