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

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

Wolf-Ulrich,
I agree that the mandate to SCI  is to deal with suspension.  Just because 
termination does not talk about Board requests for information or filing an 
interim report does not mean that suspension should not address this.  Maybe we 
should also be recommending that termination require an interim report if the 
Board has requested the info.

I personally do not understand why this issue is being rushed into a December 
agenda for GNSO that is already quite full.
Anne

[cid:600510322@12122012-0336]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: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:49 PM
To: julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 
gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed 
Revised Footnote

Sometimes it may help to briefly summarize where we came from and where we are 
now:

  1.
The present PDP as approved contains in its related manual (annex 2 to the GNSO 
Operating Rules and Procedures) para 15 "Termination of PDP prior to Final 
Report" which did not yet cause any issues
  2.
The SCI was mandated by the council in April 2012 to review whether there 
should be a modification to the GNSO PDP (PDP) Manual to address the possible 
suspension of a PDP following its initiation

We now try to incorporate a board action ("review") on the specific case of 
suspension. Wouldn't the same apply for "termination prior to Final Report" 
which is the headline of para 15? "Termination" is even more definitive than 
"suspension". But the termination was never in question, and there is no 
mandate for the SCI to deal with it.

I think we're digging in grounds which we may enter at a later stage when the 
real problem is obvious in all PDP cases described.

Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich .



________________________________
Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Julie Hedlund
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2012 22:10
An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed 
Revised Footnote

Thanks Anne.

What do others think about Anne's proposed change to the Footnote?  It would 
now read as follows (new changes in red):

"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, subject to ICANN Board review in those cases where the Board has 
requested GNSO input. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not 
considered a suspension."

With best regards,

Julie

From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:06 PM
To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed 
Revised Footnote

Julie,
I like the idea, but it could not be limited to where the Board has requested 
the PDP because as Marika pointed out, sometimes the Board just needs "Answers" 
or they request an "Issues Report".  It might say "subject to ICANN Board 
review in those cases where the Board has requested GNSO input."
Anne

[cid:600510322@12122012-033D]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 theoriginal 
message.


________________________________
From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 12:50 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed 
Revised Footnote

Hi Anne,

Perhaps we could go back to an earlier suggestion of yours and amend the 
footnote accordingly.  That is, you suggested we could substitute "subject to 
Board review" in place of "until further notice."  However, not all PDP 
suspensions may warrant a Board review because they may not be PDPs that 
resulted from a Board request.  So perhaps we could say, "subject to review by 
the ICANN Board in those cases where they Board has requested a PDP" or 
something like that.

It seems that change could address the issue that the Board should have the 
opportunity to review a suspension on a PDP it has requested and could ask for 
a specific report from the Council accordingly.  Perhaps we don't need to 
specify that the GNSO Council must provide a report, or the terms of a report, 
but could leave it up to the Board as to what they would wish to request.

I'm not sure the change is minor enough to avoid a public comment process, but 
that is for the SCI and the Council to decide.

Just a suggestion.

With best regards,

Julie

From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 1:47 PM
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>>, Alain 
Berranger <alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>" <avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>>, 
"gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed 
Revised Footnote

Marika,
This sounds quite complicated to me and could perhaps serve as the topic of its 
own PDP on  organizational behavior.  All I was really suggesting is that if a 
PDP is suspended and it involves a topic where the Board needs answers or 
initiated it somehow, there should be a written report (or reports) to the 
Board on the status of the analysis at suspension.
Thank you,
Anne

[cid:600510322@12122012-0344]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 theoriginal 
message.


________________________________
From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:31 AM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Julie Hedlund; Alain Berranger; 
KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>; 
gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed 
Revised Footnote

Anne, reading your comments it seems that your concerns go beyond what may 
happen in case of the suspension of a PDP and seems to deal more with what 
procedures should be followed / in place to communicate with other entities 
such the Board and the GAC on topics of common interest that may be the subject 
of a PDP (whether initiated by the Board or not). As the SCI will be tasked 
with reviewing the overall PDP in due time, maybe an alternative approach would 
be to start collecting topics, like this one, that would feed into the overall 
review of the GNSO PDP when the SCI decides to kick that off? For example, the 
SCI could create a wiki page for this purpose where members of the SCI, but 
also other community members could raise issues that they feel would need to be 
considered as part of this overall review. Also, by pushing this issue a bit 
further down the tracks, it is also likely that the SCI will have some concrete 
data points by reviewing how this has been handled by the GNSO Council as there 
are now two PDPs underway that have been requested by the Board, in order to 
determine whether additional procedures or guidance is required. This issue may 
benefit from a more holistic approach instead of trying to shoehorn it into the 
issue of suspension of a PDP (which has been clarified to mean for a defined 
time period following which it would continue again). Just a suggestion.

Best regards,

Marika

From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday 12 December 2012 18:45
To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
Alain Berranger <alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>" 
<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>>, 
"gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed 
Revised Footnote

Thank you, Wolf.  I am still trying to come up with language that addresses 
this concern but that does not create a need for a new public comment period.  
It almost sounds as though Marika was saying that it is implicit that this 
decision is subject to Board review and communication.  If that is the case, I 
would propose we substitute "subject to Board review" in place of "until 
further notice" in the footnote.  It does seem to me, however, that the whole 
issue of organizational effectiveness is an appropriate topic for SCI.  I noted 
that in the GNSO agenda that was published, an issue was raised as to how to 
respond to a GAC letter asking why the GNSO had initiated a PDP with respect to 
a topic that the GAC viewed as simple to implement.

It seems to me that if suspension occurs, the GNSO should be required to 
provide a full report of positions and/or reasons for suspension to the Board 
in the case where the Board has asked for Answers or for an Issue Report that 
resulted in a GNSO PDP or initiated the PDP itself pursuant to the ByLaws.    
The example Marika gave was Vertical Integration.  The discipline of preparing 
such a report is that the issues and positions are clarifed for the Board and 
that allows for them to move forward with a decision or else to decide to wait 
until the suspension lifts.  My own view is that suspension should not occur 
until such a report is finalized. If factions within the PDP can't agree on the 
content of such a final report, then more than one report could issue.

I think SCI has an opportunity here to help encourage effective organizational 
behavior among the Board, the GAC, and the GNSO so that deadlocks do  not 
occur.  I know there is history with respect to the termination of a WhoIs PDP 
back in 2007.  I also know there is pressure on ICANN to work effectively from 
outside organizations that may want control of the Internet.  It seems to me 
that SCI should not be saying "What the Board does when the GNSO suspends is 
none of our business."  Our business is to evaluate and recommend Improvements 
to the process when asked to do so.

Anne

[cid:600510322@12122012-034B]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 theoriginal 
message.


________________________________
From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 2:24 PM
To: Alain Berranger; KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>; 
gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed 
Revised Footnote

Alain,

One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change 
from the original footnote text.  The previous suggestion - adding the word 
"stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the SCI to be a 
minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public Comment Forum 
on new language.  As discussed during last Thursday's meeting, any substantive 
change to the text that was presented in the public comment period that just 
ended on 03 December would require that the revised text go out for public 
comment again at a minimum of 21 days.  Staff pointed out that with the holiday 
we would probably need a longer period, perhaps 30 days.

With best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

From: Alain Berranger 
<alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM
To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "AAikman@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<AAikman@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>" <avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>>, 
"gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed 
Revised Footnote

Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO 
Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, and 
priority...

Alain

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, 
<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, just 
bring it to the point.

First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should be 
agreed.

Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the 
concern? Or do others have?


Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: 
owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
 
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>]
 Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45
An: 'Avri Doria'; 
gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed 
Revised Footnote


Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus.  I don't think we 
are unanimous.
Anne


Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
Lewis and Roca LLP . Suite 700
One South Church Avenue . Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
Tel (520) 629-4428<tel:%28520%29%20629-4428> . Fax (520) 
879-4725<tel:%28520%29%20879-4725>
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.

-----Original Message-----
From: 
owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
 
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>]
 On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed 
Revised Footnote


Hi,

Are we unanimous on this issue?  I had the impression Anne was still concerned.

avri

On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>> 
<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

> Thanks Marika for clarification.
>
> I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) 
> to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting.
>
>
> Best regards
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Marika Konings 
> [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52
> An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; 
> avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>;
> gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
> Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a
> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
>
> Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues
> that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also
> examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the
> Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been
> initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical 
> Integration PDP:
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html).
> It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in
> the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following
> decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations:
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm.
>
> With best regards,
>
> Marika
>
> On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" 
> <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
>> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful.  Whether or not the Board calls
>> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in
>> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the
>> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to  "scope,
>> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there
>> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the
>> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is
>> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an
>> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on
>> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a
>> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a
>> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status
>> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed
>> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or
>> suspension?  We should not leave the Board in the position where it
>> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not
>> answered our questions."  This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC 
>> has asked the Board to address an issue.
>> Anne
>>
>>
>> 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<tel:%28520%29%20879-4725>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.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: 
>> owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>]
>>  On Behalf Of Marika
>> Konings
>> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM
>> To: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>; 
>> avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>; 
>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a
>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
>>
>> 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<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>" 
>> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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>
>>> [mailto: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<mailto: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<http://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<http://www.nitrodesk.com>)
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Ron Andruff 
>>>> [randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]
>>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm
>>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>]; 
>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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>
>>>> [mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>> 
>>>> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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>
>>>> [mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:%28520%29%20629-4428> . Fax (520) 
>>>>> 879-4725<tel:%28520%29%20879-4725> 
>>>>> 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: J. Scott Evans 
>>>>> [mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>]
>>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM
>>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne;
>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<tel:408.349.1385> - 
>>>> jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Julie Hedlund 
>>>>> <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>>;
>>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>" 
>>>> <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM
>>>>> To: 
>>>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>"
>>>> <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>>,
>>>> Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]
>>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm
>>>>> To: 
>>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<tel:%28602%29262-5311>           Reno 
>>>>> (775)823-2900<tel:%28775%29823-2900>
>>>>> Tucson (520)622-2090<tel:%28520%29622-2090>            
>>>>> Albuquerque(505)764-5400<tel:%28505%29764-5400>
>>>>> Las Vegas (702)949-8200<tel:%28702%29949-8200>                 Silicon 
>>>>> Valley (650)391-1380<tel:%28650%29391-1380>
>>>>>  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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> <Excerpt of PDP Manual Modified to Address Suspension of a
> PDP.docx><Motion to Adopt Revised PDP Manual to Include the Suspension of a 
> PDP.docx>







--
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
Member, Board of Directors, CECI, 
http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, 
www.schulich.yorku.ca<http://www.schulich.yorku.ca>
Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, 
www.gkpfoundation.org<http://www.gkpfoundation.org>
NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, 
www.chasquinet.org<http://www.chasquinet.org>
Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger


AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ
Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l'usage exclusif du destinataire 
ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message sans en être le 
destinataire, ou l'employé(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au 
destinataire, est par les présentes avisée qu'il lui est strictement interdit 
de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout 
ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut être joint ou si ce document vous a 
été communiqué par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ  et détruire 
ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coopération.

CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE
This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of 
the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other 
than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for 
forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, 
distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in 
part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in 
error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all 
copies. Thank you for your cooperation.