<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
- To: "julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx" <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
- From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:52:21 +0000
Julie, what I read was posted at the gnso home page as a transcript of the
call. That is why I mention the possible misunderstanding by a gnso counselor.
Thanks for all your hard work. Anne
Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx]
Received: Monday, 17 Dec 2012, 7:46am
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman@xxxxxxxxx]
CC: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx [gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx]
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
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.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|