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

[<Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I support the concept of an interim report to be put out to the
community by the GNSO Council upon its suspension of a PDP; however, I'd
like to separate out our actual recommendation (which is to clarify what
and when there is considered to be a suspension of a PDP) with our
opinion as to either the GNSO Council's relationship with/reaction to
Board-directed PDPs or as to appropriate action by the Council in voting
for a suspension.

I'd therefore suggest a slight modification to our Option 3 - take the
language/mention of an interim report out of the sentence containing our
recommendation, and either add a new sentence following that, or create
an additional, related recommendation, stating that "The SCI recommends
that, in cases of suspension of a Board-directed PDP, the GNSO Council
issues an interim report stating the reasons for such suspension to the
community." Or something along those lines.

Cheers
Mary

Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network
(SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584  

>>> "Ron Andruff"  12/14/12 3:13 PM >>>
Dear all,
 
Recognizing that I am not yet installed asthe Chair of the SCI until our
next meeting this coming Thursday (Dec. 20th),yet being responsible for
that meeting, (forgive me Wolf-Ulrich) I have tworequests: 
 
(1) It would be very helpful if all SCImembers would look at where we
are with the ‘Suspending a PDP--ProposedRevised Footnote’ and add your
thoughts.  The most recent exchanges onthat thread are noted below.  It
appears that we have found a way forward, butthis needs to be confirmed
by all members.
 
(2) I would also ask everyone to take afew minutes to complete the
Survey that Julie sent around again today with herrequest that we all
fill it out and note our experience and thoughts aboutamendments.  She
has asked for this to be done by Wednesday, Dec. 19th,so please do take
a few minutes if you can spare them during this busy lead upto Christmas
so that we can have a productive discussion.
 
Thank you all in advance for attending tothese two outstanding items.
 
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, 201212:44 PM
To: 'Ron Andruff';gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE:[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised
Footnote

 
Ron, I would certainly support that notionin the interest of
accountability and transparency.
 

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 thise-mail.
This e-mail contains legally privileged andconfidential 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
originalmessage.
 

 

From: RonAndruff [mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 201210:39 AM
To:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Subject: RE:[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised
Footnote
Question for all re: an interim status report to the ICANN Board  
 
If I understand Anne’s line ofthinking, the concern is about how to deal
specifically with Board requestedPDPs that are suspended.  However,
option 3 sounds like we arerecommending that the Board receive an
interim report whether they haveinitiated the PDP or not.  This is a
significant change and would only addmore to the Board’s already full
plate, in my view.
 
That said, in circumstance where asuspension has been called for, I do
see the merit of requesting that Councilgenerate an interim report and
post it to inform the entire communityof the suspension and reason(s)
for which it was suspended.  That would bequite 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, 201210:58 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 isa
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 furthernotice. A mere change in milestones or
schedule of the PDP is notconsidered 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 printingthis e-mail.
This e-mail contains legally privileged andconfidential 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
originalmessage.

 

 

From: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx[mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 20128:49 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 clearobjection against sending the
draft motion to the council with the option ofwithdrawing it if there
can't be found SCI consensus. So I took thisresponsibility and did it to
preserve this chance.
 
I'd like to encourage all of us tocontinue working at a solution re the
footnote. 2 suggestions are at the table:
1.       Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is
atemporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a
decisionof the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in
milestones orschedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension.
 
1.  
Suspensionis a STATEDtime interval during which there is a temporary
cessation of thePDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of
the GNSO Council, subject to ICANN Boardreview in those cases where the
Board has requested GNSO input. A mere change inmilestones or schedule
of the PDP is not considered a suspension.
3.  Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there isa
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 furthernotice. A mere change in milestones or
schedule of the PDP is notconsidered a suspension.    
 
 

Please comment.

 

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

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

 

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

Bestregards 
Wolf-Ulrich 
 

Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx] 
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Dezember2012 03:13
An:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
Betreff: RE:[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised
Footnote
Ido not believe that this "negative response" mechanism is inaccordance
with the full consensus process. I also believe I spoke against thisat
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 totake decisions using a 'full
consensus' process ("when no one in the groupspeaks against the
recommendation in its last readings").

Obviously it would be ideal if allmembers support a certain position.

 

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

 

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

 

Thanks for this valuable discussion andfor 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--ProposedRevised Footnote

 

Alain,

 

Oneconsideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive
change fromthe original footnote text.  The previous suggestion * adding
theword "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- wasdeemed by
the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us toopen a
Public Comment Forum on new language.  As discussed during
lastThursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was
presented inthe public comment period that just ended on 03 December
would require that therevised 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 longerperiod, perhaps 30 days.

 

Withbest regards,

 

Julie

 

JulieHedlund, 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--ProposedRevised Footnote

 

Canwe simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the
GNSO Chaircan clarify with the Board any required change in scope,
timing, andpriority... 
 

Alain
OnTue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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

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

Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate
theconcern? 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
aPDP--Proposed Revised Footnote


Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus.  I don't
thinkwe 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. 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
originalmessage.

-----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--ProposedRevised Footnote


Hi,

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

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 councilmeeting.
>
>
> 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
theVertical 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 Boardcalls
>> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that thenresults 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 thinkthere
>> 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" orfor 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 whereit
>> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and hasnot
>> answered our questions."  This is particularlyunsatisfactory 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)879-4725AAikman@xxxxxxxxx .
>> www.LewisandRoca.com/AikmanP 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 thiscommunication
>> 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 provideinformation
>> 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
sothat 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 Boardasked for
>>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council toinitiate
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 allGTLDs.
>>>
>>> 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 byinstructing
>>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the processoutlined 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, theCouncil,
>>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate
aPDP.
>>> 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 currentwhois 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 isto commit
>>>> policy  that has been developed through the bottom upprocess into
>>>> rule by way of  resolution.  Although the history ofthe Board's
>>>> actions to date might prove  otherwise, in anever-maturing ICANN
>>>> environment we should expect the Board  to conform toICANN'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-councilever
>>>> suspended  a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect
>>>> they would either  wait, question the postponement, ormake 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 issueat this
>>>> point, and in any case  think it is a separate issue fromthe
>>>> suspension mechanism.  All other PDPs  are g-councildecsions, 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 acouncil
>>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing anexpectation
>>>> that the  council should follow a related board request.I think
>>>> this could be the  case depending on a council debatefollowing the
>>>> board request but there is  no obligation to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnoteprovided 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 ifthe ICANN Board
>>>> says,
>>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because weneed an
>>>> answer
>>>> - go  back to the drawing board,"  then that iswhat will happen?
>>>>>
>>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN.  If GNSO can't workeffectively and
>>>>> the
>>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), thenFadi's
>>>> "oasis"
>>>> announced in Dubaibecomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure
>>>> increases to  take control away from ICANN.
>>>>>
>>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question willcome up
>>>>> at
>>>> the
>>>> GNSO level.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anne
>>>>>
>>>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of CounselLewis 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 thise-mail.
>>>>>
>>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential
>>>>> information intended only for the individual or entitynamed
>>>>> within
>>>> the message.
>>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intendedrecipient, or
>>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intendedrecipient, you
>>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination,distribution
>>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited.  Ifthis
>>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us byreply
>>>>> 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 requirefurther public
>>>> comment
>>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension.
>>>>>
>>>>> jse
>>>>>
>>>>> j. scott evans -  head of global brand, domains ©right - 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 "untilfurther 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 whichthere is a
>>>> temporary
>>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a
>>>> decision of the  GNSO Council. A mere change inmilestones or
>>>> schedule of the PDP is not  considered asuspension."
>>>>>
>>>>> From: , 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 "untilfurther 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, onSuspending a
PDP.
>>>> Please review the revised following text with the change inbold
>>>> all
>>>> caps:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during whichthere is a
>>>> temporary
>>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a
>>>> decision of the  GNSO Council until further notice. Amere change
>>>> in milestones or schedule  of the PDP is not considered
asuspension."
>>>>>
>>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below sothat
>>>>> 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 sothat 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 priorto the
>>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upona
>>>> motion that  passes with a Supermajority Vote in favourof
>>>> 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 hopelesslydeadlocked and unable
to
>>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either thestrong
>>>> support  or a consensus of its members despitesignificant time and
>>>> resources being  dedicated to the PDP;
>>>>> 2.     Changing Circumstances. Events haveoccurred since the
>>>> initiation
>>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longernecessary;
>>>> or  warranting a suspension; or
>>>>> 3.     Lack of Community Volunteers. Despiteseveral calls for
>>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantlyimpaired
>>>> and unable  to effectively conclude its deliberations dueto 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 firstprior
>>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (asdescribed
above).
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during whichthere is a
>>>> temporary
>>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a
>>>> decision of the  GNSO Council until furthernotice. A merechange in
>>>> milestones or schedule of  the PDP is not considered asuspension.
>>>>>
>>>>> For more information about Lewis and RocaLLP, 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 theindividual or
>>>> entity to
>>>> which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is notthe
>>>> intended  recipient, or the employee or agent responsiblefor
>>>> delivering the message  to the intended recipient, youare hereby
>>>> notified that any dissemination,  distribution or copyingof this
>>>> message is strictly prohibited. If you have  receivedthis
>>>> 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 Circular230, we
>>>>> advise
>>>> you
>>>> that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advicewas not
>>>> intended  or written to be used, and it cannot be used,by any
>>>> taxpayer for the  purpose of avoiding penalties that maybe imposed
>>>> on the taxpayer.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>  PDP.docx>









 

-- 
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA 
Member,Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca
Executive-in-residence,Schulich School of Business,
www.schulich.yorku.ca

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

NArepresentative, 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


 

 

AVISDE CONFIDENTIALITÉ

Cecourriel est confidentiel et est à l’usage exclusif du
destinataireci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message sans en
être ledestinataire, ou l’employé(e) ou la personne responsable de le
remettreau destinataire, est par les présentes avisée qu’il lui est
strictementinterdit 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 documentvous a été communiqué par erreur, veuillez nous
en informer sur le champ et détruire ce courriel et toute copie de
celui-ci. Merci de votrecoopération.

 

CONFIDENTIALITYMESSAGE

Thise-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use
of theaddressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone
other thanthe addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible
for forwarding itto the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to
disclose, distribute, modify orreproduce the contents of this message,
in whole or in part. If the addresseecannot be reached or if you have
received this e-mail in error, please notifyus immediately and delete
this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you foryour cooperation.