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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I think that whether we are using positive or negative consensus, once someone 
raise a concern flag, it is an active consensus, at least with regard to that 
one person.

I can't see us moving forward on this, until everyone is satisfied.  I am 
certainly not in favro of having the g-council vote on it as it stands.

avri

On 17 Dec 2012, at 13:10, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:

> Mary and Marika, I think this discussion points out why more thought is 
> needed in this process. To go back to the question I had raised, there is a 
> basic problem of the Board being put in an unworkable position if it does not 
> get answers from the GNSO. A statement of why the PDP is being suspended is 
> not in fact the same as a summary of where the working group finds itself at 
> the time of suspension, the different viewpoints that exist at that time, 
> etc. I believe that there is a lot at stake if ICANN is unable to effectively 
> address GAC advice in particular with timely policy input from the GNSO. 
> There can be many possible reasons for suspension, but a written report of 
> the status should be required at suspension or the GNSO may simply leave the 
> Board (and sometimes the GAC) in limbo. If and when that happens, it provides 
> support for the arguments of those who would vest more control in individual 
> governments.
> 
> I am honestly beginning to think that the real "bandaid" in this scenario is 
> a suspension provision that is codified in the PDP manual (part of GNSO 
> Operating procedures) without adequate analysis of the consequences. Perhaps 
> a perceived need to codify this should be part of the process that Marika has 
> mentioned when the SCI looks at the entire PDP process in one year. 
> Apparently suspension was not addressed in the PDP working group so maybe we 
> should not be trying to do the job for them. Suspension is not merely a minor 
> subset of termination which has no consequences on policy or organizational 
> effectiveness. 
> 
> In terms of consensus process, I have shared my concerns with IPC leadership 
> over the past ten days and am awaiting their further direction. This is one 
> reason that I say a "negative response" mechanism does not meet the full 
> consensus process. There are also problems with this approach in terms of 
> system downtime, travel, and time zones such as Mary is facing right now.
> 
> By the way, I should also mention that the version of the December 6 
> transcript that was posted right after that meeting contained a number of 
> inaccuracies. For example, it credits Marika with saying that it is more 
> important to get it right than it is to be concerned that this has been out 
> for public comment. I doubt she wants to be credited with that statement. 
> There were also inaccuracies in the transcript of what I said. To the extent 
> that GNSO councilors may have viewed the written transcript to inform 
> themselves on the issue, there could be some misunderstandings.
> I am headed to the Prioritization Draw today and have some other deadlines. I 
> will check back into this list tomorrow. Again, I am awaiting further 
> direction from IPC leadership with respect to this matter.
> Thank you,
> Anne
> 
> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx [Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Received: Sunday, 16 Dec 2012, 8:23am
> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx [gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx]; 
> marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx [marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx]; Aikman-Scalese, Anne 
> [AAikman@xxxxxxxxx]; randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised 
> Footnote
> 
> Thanks, Marika - perhaps using the term "interim status report" conveys more 
> than I'd intended to suggest in supporting the concept. What I had in mind 
> was simply a statement from the Council when voting to suspend a PDP, giving 
> its reasons for so doing. The intention was to so notify the community - 
> incuding the ICANN Board in cases of Board-directed PDPs - that such an 
> action had been taken. As such, and instead of using the term "interim status 
> report" we could just say "a statement of reasons" from the GNSO Council.
> 
> 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  
> 
> 
> >>>
> From:
> "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>
> To:
> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>, 
> "randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
> "Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx" <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx" 
> <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date:
> 12/16/2012 8:29 AM
> Subject:
> Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
> Marika, I see the point of broader considerations but think the analogy to a 
> bandaid on an unmanifested wound is very poor. It's actually a bit more like 
> putting on a helmet before riding a bike. See you Monday at the brunch and 
> maybe we can talk further! Anne
> 
> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marika Konings [marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx]
> Received: Sunday, 16 Dec 2012, 2:10am
> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman@xxxxxxxxx]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx]; randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]; Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx [Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised 
> Footnote
> 
> All, it may be worth pointing out that for every PDP as well as non-PDP, 
> there are regular status updates already provided. For example, the GNSO 
> project list which is updated on a monthly basis (see 
> http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf). Also, each project 
> has their own page on the GNSO web-site which is updated with every milestone 
> activity (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active-groups.htm). 
> In addition, each resolution that is adopted by the GNSO Council contains the 
> rationale for that decision in the 'whereas' clauses (see 
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions). 
> 
> It should also be noted that an 'interim status report' is currently not 
> defined in the PDP Manual (what would need to be in there, who is responsible 
> for preparing it, would it need to be adopted by a vote of the GNSO 
> Council?). Furthermore, in addition to the Board, ICANN Advisory Committees 
> can also request Issue Reports, but they have not been considered in this 
> conversation. 
> 
> As a result, I would really like to encourage the SCI to review this issue in 
> a broader context (if/when/how should PDP status updates be provided to 
> entities other than the GNSO Council during the lifespan of a PDP, taking 
> into account all the different communication tools already in place) as part 
> of the overall review of the PDP, instead of applying a bandaid here to a 
> wound that has not even manifested itself.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Marika
> 
> From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Saturday 15 December 2012 18:58
> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>, 
> "randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
> "Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx" <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised 
> Footnote
> 
> Just a minor note that at this point we were not limiting the interim status 
> report to any "Board-directed PDP". I think the simplest add would be to 
> require an interim status report to the GNSO Council, e.g. "all activities 
> (other than an interim status report to the Council) will halt." Then SCI 
> could recommend that the interim status report be published to the entire 
> community. Anne
> 
> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx [Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Received: Friday, 14 Dec 2012, 7:22pm
> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx [gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx]; 
> Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman@xxxxxxxxx]; randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised 
> Footnote
> 
> 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 as the 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 two requests:
>  
> (1) It would be very helpful if all SCI members would look at where we are 
> with the ?Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote? and add your thoughts. 
>  The most recent exchanges on that thread are noted below.  It appears that 
> we have found a way forward, but this needs to be confirmed by all members.
>  
> (2) I would also ask everyone to take a few minutes to complete the Survey 
> that Julie sent around again today with her request that we all fill it out 
> and note our experience and thoughts about amendments.  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 up to Christmas so that we can have 
> a productive discussion.
>  
> Thank you all in advance for attending to these 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, 2012 12:44 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 notion in 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 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: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:39 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 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.
>       •  
> 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 . 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.
> 
> -----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) 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) 629-4428 . Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@xxxxxxxxx .
> >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential
> >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named
> >>>>> within
> >>>> the message.
> >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or
> >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you
> >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution
> >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this
> >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply
> >>>>> e-mail and delete the
> >>>> original message.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx]
> >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM
> >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne;
> >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a
> >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public
> >>>> comment
> >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> jse
> >>>>>
> >>>>> j. scott evans -  head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo!
> >>>> Inc.
> >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>;
> >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a
> >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks Anne.  Then, would you want "until further notice" to be
> >>>> deleted?
> >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>> Julie
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a
> >>>> temporary
> >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a
> >>>> decision of the  GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or
> >>>> schedule of the PDP is not  considered a suspension."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM
> >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx"
> >>>> <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>,
> >>>> Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a
> >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"?
> >>>> If
> >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would
> >>>> not apply.
> >>>> Anne
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx]
> >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm
> >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx]
> >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a
> >>>> PDP--Proposed
> >>>> Revised Footnote
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dear SCI members,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a
> >>>> clarification to
> >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP.
> >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold
> >>>> all
> >>>> caps:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a
> >>>> temporary
> >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a
> >>>> decision of the  GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change
> >>>> in milestones or schedule  of the PDP is not considered a suspension."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that
> >>>>> the
> >>>> footnote may be viewed in context.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is
> >>>>> accepted
> >>>> by the
> >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if
> >>>>> the
> >>>> SCI
> >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of
> >>>> Wednesday,
> >>>> 12
> >>>> December.**
> >>>>>
> >>>>> With best regards,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Julie
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 15.    Termination of PDP prior to Final Report
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the
> >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a
> >>>> motion that  passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of
> >>>> termination orsuspension.
> >>>> The
> >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a
> >>>> premature  termination or suspension of a PDP:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1.     Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to
> >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong
> >>>> support  or a consensus of its members despite significant time and
> >>>> resources being  dedicated to the PDP;
> >>>>> 2.     Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the
> >>>> initiation
> >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary;
> >>>> or  warranting a suspension; or
> >>>>> 3.     Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for
> >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired
> >>>> and unable  to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack
> >>>> of volunteer  participation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its
> >>>>> termination,
> >>>> the
> >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior
> >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a
> >>>> temporary
> >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a
> >>>> decision of the  GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in
> >>>> milestones or schedule of  the PDP is not considered a suspension.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to
> >>>> www.lewisandroca.com.
> >>>>> Phoenix (602)262-5311           Reno (775)823-2900
> >>>>> Tucson (520)622-2090            Albuquerque(505)764-5400
> >>>>> Las Vegas (702)949-8200                 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380
> >>>>>  This message is intended only for the use of the individual or
> >>>> entity to
> >>>> which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the
> >>>> intended  recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for
> >>>> delivering the message  to the intended recipient, you are hereby
> >>>> notified that any dissemination,  distribution or copying of this
> >>>> message is strictly prohibited. If you have  received this
> >>>> communication in error, please notify us immediately by  replying
> >>>> to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.
> >>>>>  In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we
> >>>>> advise
> >>>> you
> >>>> that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not
> >>>> intended  or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any
> >>>> taxpayer for the  purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed
> >>>> on the taxpayer.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> > <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
> 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.
>  
>