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

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Question for all re: an interim status report to the ICANN Board  

 

If I understand Anne’s line of thinking, the concern is about how to deal
specifically with Board requested PDPs that are suspended.  However, option
3 sounds like we are recommending that the Board receive an interim report
whether they have initiated the PDP or not.  This is a significant change
and would only add more to the Board’s already full plate, in my view.

 

That said, in circumstance where a suspension has been called for, I do see
the merit of requesting that Council generate an interim report and post it
to inform the entire community of the suspension and reason(s) for which it
was suspended.  That would be quite logical in the larger scheme of things.

 

Anne, please correct me if I am wrong.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese,
Anne
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:58 AM
To: 'KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised
Footnote

 

I would propose a third option:

3.  Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary
cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status
report to the ICANN Board) 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.    

 

 

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: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:49 AM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised
Footnote

All,

 

from the list I did not understand a clear objection against sending the
draft motion to the council with the option of withdrawing it if there can't
be found SCI consensus. So I took this responsibility and did it to preserve
this chance.

 

I'd like to encourage all of us to continue working at a solution re the
footnote. 2 suggestions are at the table:

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 further notice. A mere change in
milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension.

2.       

Suspension is a STATEDtime 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.

3.  Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary
cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status
report to the ICANN Board) 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.    

 

 

Please comment.

 

I wonder what how to proceed if there will be no consensus found at thew
time being. On the one hand I've got the impression that a majority would be
satisfied with suggestion #1 but also open to find a solution which doesn't
cause the need for another public comment period.

In case of no consensus we could also - as we did with other items discussed
at the SCI - report to the council where we are, that there has been a
public comment period successfully finished, but there are still concerns
which would prevent the SCI from consensus. The council may then decide how
to deal with the (publicly commented) text.

 

I would be thankful hearing your assessment on and under which conditions
consensus could still be achieved.

Best regards 
Wolf-Ulrich 

 


  _____  


Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx] 
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2012 03:13
An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised
Footnote

I do not believe that this "negative response" mechanism is in accordance
with the full consensus process. I also believe I spoke against this at the
last reading. Anne

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

-----Original Message----- 
From: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx [KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx]
Received: Wednesday, 12 Dec 2012, 5:06am
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx [gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx]
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote

All,

 

per its charter, the SCI is expected to take decisions using a 'full
consensus' process ("when no one in the group speaks against the
recommendation in its last readings").

Obviously it would be ideal if all members support a certain position.

 

It would also be ideal if we find consensus today which is the deadline for
motions before the next counciil meeting. But in order to reduce time
pressure I could imagine the option to submit the draft motion today, noting
that there are some issues that are still being discussed by the SCI which
may result in withdrawal of the motion and agenda item if no agreement can
be found.

 

If there is no objection I'll do so accordingly at the end of the day.

 

Thanks for this valuable discussion and for your understanding.

 

Best regards

 

Wolf-Ulrich

 

 

 

From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Alain Berranger <alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx>, "KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx"
<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "AAikman@xxxxxxxxx" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>, "avri@xxxxxxx" <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

 

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>
Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM
To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "AAikman@xxxxxxxxx" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>, "avri@xxxxxxx" <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

 

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> 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] Im Auftrag von
Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45
An: 'Avri Doria'; 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 . 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] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM
To: 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> <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]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52
> An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri@xxxxxxx;
> 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> 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) <tel:%28520%29%20879-4725>
879-4725AAikman@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.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: 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; avri@xxxxxxx; 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" <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) <tel:%28520%29%20629-4428>  629-4428 . Fax (520)
<tel:%28520%29%20879-4725>  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 <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

Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org

NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, 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.