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

[Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]

Anne,

I would like to provide a clarification with respect to your statement below:

"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 would like to clarify that the notes I posted to the list after the meeting 
that included the statement attributed to Marike were not meant to be a 
"transcript" of the call.  The transcript is captured along with the MP3 as a 
separate and more accurate mechanism.  I was simply trying to provide some 
quick brief notes for reference.  As such I provided these based on my best 
recollection during and after the call and I do think I asked for comments in 
case I mischaracterized anything.   I will, however, in future refrain from 
taking such notes since they may be inaccurate (since I am not a professional 
transcriber), and instead the SCI can rely on the MP3 and the transcript for 
reference.

Best regards,

Julie

From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Monday, December 17, 2012 7:10 AM
To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>, Ron 
Andruff <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>" 
<Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote

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<mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
[Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>]
Received: Sunday, 16 Dec 2012, 8:23am
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> 
[gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>]; 
marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> 
[marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]; Aikman-Scalese, 
Anne [AAikman@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>]; 
randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>>


To:


"gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" 
<randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>" 
<Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]
Received: Sunday, 16 Dec 2012, 2:10am
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>]; 
gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> 
[gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>]; 
randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]; 
Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
[Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Saturday 15 December 2012 18:58
To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" 
<randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>" 
<Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
[Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>]
Received: Friday, 14 Dec 2012, 7:22pm
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> 
[gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>]; 
Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>]; 
randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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>
 [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<mailto: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.

[%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700
One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
Tel (520) 629-4428 ? Fax (520) 879-4725
AAikman@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx> ? 
www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman>
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original 
message.



________________________________
From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:39 AM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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>
 [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, 
Anne
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:58 AM
To: 'KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:'KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>'; 
gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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.


[378205215@13122012-3268]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700
One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
Tel (520) 629-4428 ? Fax (520) 879-4725
AAikman@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx> ? 
www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman>
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original 
message.



________________________________
From:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> [mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:49 AM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 
gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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.

 1.
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<mailto: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<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> 
[KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]
Received: Wednesday, 12 Dec 2012, 5:06am
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> 
[gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>]
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] 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<mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>>
To: Alain Berranger 
<alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>" 
<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "AAikman@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<AAikman@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>" <avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>>, 
"gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed 
Revised Footnote

Alain,

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

With best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

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

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

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

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

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

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


Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich


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


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


Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
Lewis and Roca LLP . Suite 700
One South Church Avenue . Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
Tel (520) 629-4428<tel:%28520%29%20629-4428> . Fax (520) 
879-4725<tel:%28520%29%20879-4725>
AAikman@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx> . 
www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman>
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original 
message.

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


Hi,

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

avri

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

> Thanks Marika for clarification.
>
> I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) 
> to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting.
>
>
> Best regards
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Marika Konings 
> [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52
> An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; 
> avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>;
> gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
> Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a
> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
>
> Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues
> that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also
> examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the
> Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been
> initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical 
> Integration PDP:
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html).
> It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in
> the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following
> decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations:
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm.
>
> With best regards,
>
> Marika
>
> On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" 
> <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
>> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful.  Whether or not the Board calls
>> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in
>> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the
>> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to  "scope,
>> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there
>> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the
>> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is
>> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an
>> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on
>> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a
>> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a
>> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status
>> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed
>> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or
>> suspension?  We should not leave the Board in the position where it
>> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not
>> answered our questions."  This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC 
>> has asked the Board to address an issue.
>> Anne
>>
>>
>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
>> Of Counsel
>> Lewis and Roca LLP . Suite 700
>> One South Church Avenue . Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520)
>> 629-4428 . Fax (520) 
>> 879-4725<tel:%28520%29%20879-4725>AAikman@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>
>>  .
>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman> P Please 
>> consider the environment before
>> printing this e-mail.
>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
>> intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
>> agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
>> hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
>> copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
>> was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete
>> the original message.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: 
>> owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>]
>>  On Behalf Of Marika
>> Konings
>> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM
>> To: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>; 
>> avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>; 
>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a
>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
>>
>> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the
>> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation
>> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process
>> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a
>> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois
>> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of
>> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions
>> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of
>> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out
>> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no
>> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically
>> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a
>> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which
>> the GNSO  Council can consult with the Board to provide information
>> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue
>> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO
>> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another
>> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board
>> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result
>> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to
>> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it 
>> would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP.
>>
>> With best regards,
>>
>> Marika
>>
>> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>" 
>> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: 
>>> owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>]
>>>  Im Auftrag von Avri
>>> Doria
>>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39
>>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a
>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they
>>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP.
>>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers.
>>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs.  Had the Board asked for
>>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the 
>>> PDP.
>>> Specifically:
>>>
>>> "
>>> March 212 20120314-1
>>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick'
>>> Whois
>>>
>>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois
>>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011
>>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109<http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109>);
>>>
>>> ....
>>> "
>>>
>>> "
>>> November 2012 20121017-2
>>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the
>>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs.
>>>
>>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of
>>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of
>>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the
>>> New gTLD Program.
>>>
>>> ....
>>> "
>>>
>>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
>>>
>>> "
>>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report
>>>
>>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing
>>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual.
>>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the
>>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can
>>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing,
>>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report.
>>>
>>> ....
>>>
>>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP
>>>
>>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows:
>>>
>>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council,
>>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP.
>>> No vote is required for such action.
>>> "
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
>>>
>>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP
>>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown 
>>>> (www.nitrodesk.com<http://www.nitrodesk.com>)
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Ron Andruff 
>>>> [randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]
>>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm
>>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>]; 
>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>]
>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a
>>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I support Avri's comments as well.  The Board's role is to commit
>>>> policy  that has been developed through the bottom up process into
>>>> rule by way of  resolution.  Although the history of the Board's
>>>> actions to date might prove  otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN
>>>> environment we should expect the Board  to conform to ICANN's basic
>>>> principles.
>>>>
>>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> RA
>>>>
>>>> Ronald N. Andruff
>>>> RNA Partners, Inc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: 
>>>> owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>]
>>>>  On Behalf Of Avri
>>>> Doria
>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM
>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a
>>>> PDP--Proposed  Revised Footnote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever
>>>> suspended  a PDP that they mandated is an open question.  I expect
>>>> they would either  wait, question the postponement, or make one
>>>> their preemptory decisions.
>>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP -
>>>> though they  can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this
>>>> point, and in any case  think it is a separate issue from the
>>>> suspension mechanism.  All other PDPs  are g-council decsions, even
>>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the  ACs.
>>>>
>>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks.
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>> 
>>>> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Anne and all,
>>>>>
>>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council
>>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation
>>>> that the  council should follow a related board request. I think
>>>> this could be the  case depending on a council debate following the
>>>> board request but there is  no obligation to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by
>>>> Julie?
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards
>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Von: 
>>>>> owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>]
>>>>  Im Auftrag von
>>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne
>>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43
>>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund;
>>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a
>>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
>>>>>
>>>>> This makes sense.  Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board
>>>> says,
>>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an
>>>> answer
>>>> - go  back to the drawing board,"  then that is what will happen?
>>>>>
>>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN.  If GNSO can't work effectively and
>>>>> the
>>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's
>>>> "oasis"
>>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure
>>>> increases to  take control away from ICANN.
>>>>>
>>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up
>>>>> at
>>>> the
>>>> GNSO level.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anne
>>>>>
>>>>> <image001.gif>Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP
>>>>> . Suite 700 One South Church Avenue . Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
>>>>> Tel (520) 629-4428<tel:%28520%29%20629-4428> . Fax (520) 
>>>>> 879-4725<tel:%28520%29%20879-4725> 
>>>>> AAikman@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx> .
>>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>>>>>
>>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential
>>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named
>>>>> within
>>>> the message.
>>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or
>>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you
>>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution
>>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this
>>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply
>>>>> e-mail and delete the
>>>> original message.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: J. Scott Evans 
>>>>> [mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>]
>>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM
>>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne;
>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a
>>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
>>>>>
>>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public
>>>> comment
>>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension.
>>>>>
>>>>> jse
>>>>>
>>>>> j. scott evans -  head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo!
>>>> Inc.
>>>> - 408.349.1385<tel:408.349.1385> - 
>>>> jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Julie Hedlund 
>>>>> <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>>;
>>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>" 
>>>> <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a
>>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Anne.  Then, would you want "until further notice" to be
>>>> deleted?
>>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Julie
>>>>>
>>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a
>>>> temporary
>>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a
>>>> decision of the  GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or
>>>> schedule of the PDP is not  considered a suspension."
>>>>>
>>>>> From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM
>>>>> To: 
>>>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>"
>>>> <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>>,
>>>> Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a
>>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"?
>>>> If
>>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would
>>>> not apply.
>>>> Anne
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown 
>>>>> (www.nitrodesk.com<http://www.nitrodesk.com>)
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Julie Hedlund 
>>>>> [julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]
>>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm
>>>>> To: 
>>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>]
>>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a
>>>> PDP--Proposed
>>>> Revised Footnote
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear SCI members,
>>>>>
>>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a
>>>> clarification to
>>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP.
>>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold
>>>> all
>>>> caps:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a
>>>> temporary
>>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a
>>>> decision of the  GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change
>>>> in milestones or schedule  of the PDP is not considered a suspension."
>>>>>
>>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that
>>>>> the
>>>> footnote may be viewed in context.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is
>>>>> accepted
>>>> by the
>>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if
>>>>> the
>>>> SCI
>>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of
>>>> Wednesday,
>>>> 12
>>>> December.**
>>>>>
>>>>> With best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Julie
>>>>>
>>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>>>>>
>>>>> 15.    Termination of PDP prior to Final Report
>>>>>
>>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the
>>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a
>>>> motion that  passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of
>>>> termination orsuspension.
>>>> The
>>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a
>>>> premature  termination or suspension of a PDP:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.     Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to
>>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong
>>>> support  or a consensus of its members despite significant time and
>>>> resources being  dedicated to the PDP;
>>>>> 2.     Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the
>>>> initiation
>>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary;
>>>> or  warranting a suspension; or
>>>>> 3.     Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for
>>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired
>>>> and unable  to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack
>>>> of volunteer  participation.
>>>>>
>>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its
>>>>> termination,
>>>> the
>>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior
>>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above).
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a
>>>> temporary
>>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a
>>>> decision of the  GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in
>>>> milestones or schedule of  the PDP is not considered a suspension.
>>>>>
>>>>> For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to
>>>> www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com>.
>>>>> Phoenix (602)262-5311<tel:%28602%29262-5311>           Reno 
>>>>> (775)823-2900<tel:%28775%29823-2900>
>>>>> Tucson (520)622-2090<tel:%28520%29622-2090>            
>>>>> Albuquerque(505)764-5400<tel:%28505%29764-5400>
>>>>> Las Vegas (702)949-8200<tel:%28702%29949-8200>                 Silicon 
>>>>> Valley (650)391-1380<tel:%28650%29391-1380>
>>>>>  This message is intended only for the use of the individual or
>>>> entity to
>>>> which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the
>>>> intended  recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for
>>>> delivering the message  to the intended recipient, you are hereby
>>>> notified that any dissemination,  distribution or copying of this
>>>> message is strictly prohibited. If you have  received this
>>>> communication in error, please notify us immediately by  replying
>>>> to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.
>>>>>  In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we
>>>>> advise
>>>> you
>>>> that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not
>>>> intended  or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any
>>>> taxpayer for the  purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed
>>>> on the taxpayer.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> <Excerpt of PDP Manual Modified to Address Suspension of a
> PDP.docx><Motion to Adopt Revised PDP Manual to Include the Suspension of a 
> PDP.docx>





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


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

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