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

["J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All:

I have now read further through the voluminous emails I did not have time to 
read last week and I would like to amend my comments below.  After reviewing 
the debate, I want to further support Anne's call for a Interim Status Report 
on any suspended PDP.  I see this as going beyond more than a clear statement 
on the reasoning for suspension and, again, I think it is necessary so that the 
community can be fully advised on where the work is at the time of suspension 
and why it is being suspended in one neat summary document.  Additionally, I 
see no reason to limit this to any certain type of PDP.  The simplest solution 
is to have the same procedure apply to all PDP's initiated by the GNSO Council.

J. Scott
 
j. scott evans -  head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 
408.349.1385 - jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx




________________________________
 From: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>; "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" 
<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> 
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
 

Dear All:

First, I fully support Avri's comment below regarding the need for full 
consensus and I do not see that we have achieved full consensus on this issue.  
For this reason, unless we resolve the issue on tomorrow's call, I do not think 
the GNSO is in a position to vote on the proposed motion.

Second, I am fully supportive of the points that Anne has raised and I see no 
reason we could not include provision that requires a statement on why the PDP 
is being suspended.  I think that such a statement is a very well thought out 
point.  I realize that there are archives of information on the PDP, but the 
ICANN Board, the GAC and many other stakeholders have a great deal of issues to 
contend with in the multi-stakeholder model.  For this reason, I think it would 
be very helpful to have a clear statement of why the PDP is being suspended.  I 
see this as no different from requiring a "stated" time for the suspension.

I will not be on the call tomorrow due to a prior commitment.  For this reason, 
Anne will be presenting the IPC position as the fully representative.  I urge 
everyone to work with Anne to address her concerns.

J. Scott
 
j. scott evans -  head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 
408.349.1385 - jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx




________________________________
 From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 4:43 AM
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
 

Hi,

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

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

avri

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

> Mary and Marika, I think this discussion points out why more thought is 
> needed in this process. To go back to the question I had raised, there is a 
> basic problem of the Board being put in an unworkable position if it does not 
> get answers from the GNSO. A statement of why the PDP is being suspended is 
> not
 in fact the same as a summary of where the working group finds itself at the 
time of suspension, the different viewpoints that exist at that time, etc. I 
believe that there is a lot at stake if ICANN is unable to effectively address 
GAC advice in particular with timely policy input from the GNSO. There can be 
many possible reasons for suspension, but a written report of the status should 
be required at suspension or the GNSO may simply leave the Board (and sometimes 
the GAC) in limbo. If and when that happens, it provides support for the 
arguments of those who would vest more control in individual governments.
> 
> I am honestly beginning to think that the real "bandaid" in this scenario is 
> a suspension provision that is codified in the PDP manual (part of GNSO 
> Operating procedures) without adequate analysis of the consequences. Perhaps 
> a perceived need to codify this should be part of the process that Marika has 
> mentioned when the SCI looks
 at the entire PDP process in one year. Apparently suspension was not addressed 
in the PDP working group so maybe we should not be trying to do the job for 
them. Suspension is not merely a minor subset of termination which has no 
consequences on policy or organizational effectiveness. 
> 
> In terms of consensus process, I have shared my concerns with IPC leadership 
> over the past ten days and am awaiting their further direction. This is one 
> reason that I say a "negative response" mechanism does not meet the full 
> consensus process. There are also problems with this approach in terms of 
> system downtime, travel, and time zones such as Mary is facing right now.
> 
> By the way, I should also mention that the version of the December 6 
> transcript that was posted right after that meeting contained a number of 
> inaccuracies. For example, it credits Marika with saying that it is more 
> important to get it right than it is to be concerned that
 this has been out for public comment. I doubt she wants to be credited with 
that statement. There were also inaccuracies in the transcript of what I said. 
To the extent that GNSO councilors may have viewed the written transcript to 
inform themselves on the issue, there could be some misunderstandings.
> I am headed to the Prioritization Draw today and have some other deadlines. I 
> will check back into this list tomorrow. Again, I am awaiting further 
> direction from IPC leadership with respect to this matter.
> Thank you,
> Anne
> 
> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx [Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Received: Sunday, 16 Dec 2012, 8:23am
> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx [gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx]; 
> marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx [marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx]; Aikman-Scalese, Anne 
> [AAikman@xxxxxxxxx]; randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised 
> Footnote
> 
> Thanks, Marika -
 perhaps using the term "interim status report" conveys more than I'd intended 
to suggest in supporting the concept. What I had in mind was simply a statement 
from the Council when voting to suspend a PDP, giving its reasons for so doing. 
The intention was to so notify the community - incuding the ICANN Board in 
cases of Board-directed PDPs - that such an action had been taken. As such, and 
instead of using the term "interim status report" we could just say "a 
statement of reasons" from the GNSO Council.
> 
> Cheers
> Mary
> 
> 
> 
> Mary W S Wong 
> Professor of Law 
> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP 
> Chair, Graduate IP Programs 
> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW 
> Two White Street 
> Concord, NH 03301 
> USA 
> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> Phone:
 1-603-513-5143 
> Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php 
> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: 
> http://ssrn.com/author=437584  
> 
> 
> >>>
> From:
> "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>
> To:
> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>, 
> "randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
> "Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx" <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx" 
> <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date:
> 12/16/2012 8:29 AM
> Subject:
> Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
> Marika, I see the point of broader considerations but think the analogy to a 
> bandaid on an unmanifested wound is very poor. It's actually a bit more like 
> putting on a helmet before riding a bike. See you Monday at the brunch and 
> maybe we can talk
 further! Anne
> 
> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marika Konings [marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx]
> Received: Sunday, 16 Dec 2012, 2:10am
> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman@xxxxxxxxx]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx]; randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]; Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx [Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised 
> Footnote
> 
> All, it may be worth pointing out that for every PDP as well as non-PDP, 
> there are regular status updates already provided. For example, the GNSO 
> project list which is updated on a monthly basis (see 
> http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf). Also, each project 
> has their own page on the GNSO web-site which is updated with every milestone 
> activity (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active-groups.htm). 
> In addition, each resolution that is adopted by the GNSO Council contains the 
> rationale for that decision in the 'whereas' clauses (see 
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions). 
> 
> It should also be noted that an 'interim status report' is currently not 
> defined in the PDP Manual (what would need to be in there, who is responsible 
> for preparing it, would it need to be adopted by a vote of the GNSO 
> Council?). Furthermore, in addition to the Board, ICANN Advisory Committees 
> can also request Issue Reports, but they have not been considered in this 
> conversation. 
> 
> As a result, I would really like to encourage the SCI to review this issue in 
> a broader context (if/when/how should PDP status updates be provided to 
> entities other than the GNSO Council during the lifespan of a PDP, taking 
> into account all the different communication tools already in place) as part 
> of the overall review of the PDP, instead of
 applying a bandaid here to a wound that has not even manifested itself.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Marika
> 
> From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Saturday 15 December 2012 18:58
> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>, 
> "randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
> "Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx" <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised 
> Footnote
> 
> Just a minor note that at this point we were not limiting the interim status 
> report to any "Board-directed PDP". I think the simplest add would be to 
> require an interim status report to the GNSO Council, e.g. "all activities 
> (other than an interim status report to the Council) will halt." Then SCI 
> could recommend that the interim status report be published to the entire 
> community. Anne
> 
> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx [Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Received:
 Friday, 14 Dec 2012, 7:22pm
> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx [gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx]; 
> Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman@xxxxxxxxx]; randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised 
> Footnote
> 
> I support the concept of an interim report to be put out to the community by 
> the GNSO Council upon its suspension of a PDP; however, I'd like to separate 
> out our actual recommendation (which is to clarify
 what and when there is considered to be a suspension of a PDP) with our 
opinion as to either the GNSO Council's relationship with/reaction to 
Board-directed PDPs or as to appropriate action by the Council in voting for a 
suspension.
> 
> I'd therefore suggest a slight modification to our Option 3 - take the 
> language/mention of an interim report out of the sentence containing our 
> recommendation, and either add a new sentence following that, or create an 
> additional, related recommendation, stating that "The SCI recommends that, in 
> cases of suspension of a Board-directed PDP, the GNSO Council issues an 
> interim report stating the reasons for such suspension to the community." Or 
> something along those lines.
> 
> Cheers
> Mary
> 
> 
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law
> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF
 LAW
> Two White Street
> Concord, NH 03301
> USA
> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
> Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: 
> http://ssrn.com/author=437584
> 
> >>> "Ron Andruff" 12/14/12 3:13 PM >>>
> Dear all,
>  
> Recognizing that I am not yet installed as the Chair of the SCI until our 
> next meeting this coming Thursday (Dec. 20th), yet being responsible for that 
> meeting, (forgive me Wolf-Ulrich) I have two requests:
>  
> (1) It would be very helpful if all SCI members would look at where we are 
> with the ?Suspending a
 PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote? and add your thoughts.  The most recent 
exchanges on that thread are noted below.  It appears that we have found a way 
forward, but this needs to be confirmed by all members.
>  
> (2) I would also ask everyone to take a few minutes to complete the Survey 
> that Julie sent around again today with her request that we all fill it out 
> and note our experience and thoughts about amendments.  She has asked for 
> this to be done by Wednesday, Dec. 19th, so please do take a few minutes if 
> you can spare them during this busy lead up to Christmas so that we can have 
> a productive discussion.
>  
> Thank you all in advance for attending to these two outstanding items.
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> RA
>  
> Ronald N. Andruff
> RNA Partners, Inc.
>  
> 
> From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, 
> Anne
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 12:44 PM
> To: 'Ron Andruff'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised 
> Footnote
>  
> Ron, I would certainly support that notion in the interest of accountability 
> and transparency.
>  
> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
> Of Counsel
> Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700
> One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
> Tel (520) 629-4428 ? Fax (520) 879-4725
> AAikman@xxxxxxxxx ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman
> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
> intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
> agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
> was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the 
> original message.
>  
>  
> 
> From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:39 AM
> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised 
> Footnote
> Question for all re: an interim status report to the ICANN Board  
>  
> If I understand Anne?s line of thinking, the concern is about how to deal 
> specifically with Board requested PDPs that are suspended.  However, option 3 
> sounds like we are recommending that the Board receive an interim report 
> whether they have initiated the PDP or not.  This is a significant change and 
> would only add more to the Board?s already full plate, in my view.
>  
> That said, in circumstance where a suspension has been called for, I do see 
> the merit of requesting that Council generate an interim report and post it 
> to inform the entire community of the suspension and
 reason(s) for which it was suspended.  That would be quite logical in the 
larger scheme of things.
>  
> Anne, please correct me if I am wrong.
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> RA
>  
> Ronald N. Andruff
> RNA Partners, Inc.
>  
>  
> 
> From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, 
> Anne
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:58 AM
> To: 'KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised 
> Footnote
>  
> I would propose a third option:
> 3.  Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary 
> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status 
> report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council 
> until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is 
> not considered a suspension.  
>  
>  
> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
> Of Counsel
> Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700
> One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
> Tel (520) 629-4428 ? Fax (520) 879-4725
> AAikman@xxxxxxxxx ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman
> P Please consider the
 environment before printing this e-mail.
> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
> intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
> agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
> was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the 
> original message.
>  
>  
> 
> From:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:49 AM
> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised 
> Footnote
> All,
>  
> from the list I did not understand a clear objection against sending the 
> draft motion to the council with the option of withdrawing it if there can't 
> be found SCI consensus. So I took this responsibility and did it to preserve 
> this chance.
>  
> I'd like to encourage all of us to continue working at a solution re the 
> footnote. 2 suggestions are at the table:
> 1.       Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a 
> temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a 
> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in 
> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension.
>     •  
> Suspension is a STATEDtime interval during which there is a temporary 
> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the 
> GNSO Council, subject to ICANN Board review in those cases where the Board 
> has requested GNSO input. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP 
> is not considered a suspension.
> 3.  Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary 
> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status 
> report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council 
> until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is 
> not considered a suspension.  
>  
>  
> Please comment.
>  
> I wonder what how to proceed if there will be no consensus found at thew time 
> being. On the one hand I've got the impression that a majority would be 
> satisfied with suggestion #1 but also open to find a
 solution which doesn't cause the need for another public comment period.
> In case of no consensus we could also - as we did with other items discussed 
> at the SCI - report to the council where we are, that there has been a public 
> comment period successfully finished, but there are still concerns which 
> would prevent the SCI from consensus. The council may then decide how to deal 
> with the (publicly commented) text.
>  
> I would be thankful hearing your assessment on and under which conditions 
> consensus could still be achieved.
> Best regards
> Wolf-Ulrich
>  
> 
> Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2012 03:13
> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised 
> Footnote
> I do not believe that this "negative response" mechanism is in accordance 
> with the full consensus process. I also believe I spoke against this at the 
> last reading. Anne
> 
> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx [KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Received: Wednesday, 12 Dec 2012, 5:06am
> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx [gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx]
> Subject:
 [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
> All,
>  
> per its charter, the SCI is expected to take decisions using a 'full 
> consensus' process ("when no one in the group speaks against the 
> recommendation in its last readings").
> Obviously it would be ideal if all members support a certain position.
>  
> It would also be ideal if we find consensus today which is the deadline for 
> motions before the next counciil meeting. But in order to reduce time 
> pressure I could imagine the option to submit the draft motion today, noting 
> that there are some issues that are still being discussed by the SCI which 
> may result in withdrawal of the motion and agenda item if no agreement can be 
> found.
>  
> If there is no objection I'll do so accordingly at the end of the day.
>  
> Thanks for this valuable discussion and for your understanding.
>  
>
 Best regards
>  
> Wolf-Ulrich
>  
>  
>  
> From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: Alain Berranger <alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx>, "KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx" 
> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "AAikman@xxxxxxxxx" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>, "avri@xxxxxxx" <avri@xxxxxxx>, 
> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed 
> Revised Footnote
>  
> Alain,
>  
> One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change 
> from the original footnote text.  The previous suggestion ? adding the word 
> "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the SCI to be 
> a minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public Comment 
> Forum on new language.  As discussed during last Thursday's meeting, any 
> substantive change to the text that was presented in the public comment 
> period that just ended on 03 December would require that the revised text go 
> out
 for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days.  Staff pointed out that with 
the holiday we would probably need a longer period, perhaps 30 days.
>  
> With best regards,
>  
> Julie
>  
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>  
> From: Alain Berranger <alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM
> To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "AAikman@xxxxxxxxx" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>, "avri@xxxxxxx" <avri@xxxxxxx>, 
> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed 
> Revised Footnote
>  
> Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO 
> Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, and 
> priority...
>  
> Alain
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, 
> just bring it to the point.
> 
> First the wording must be accepted
 by all of us, then the procedure should be agreed.
> 
> Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the 
> concern? Or do others have?
> 
> 
> Best regards
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, 
> Anne
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45
> An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed 
> Revised
 Footnote
> 
> 
> Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus.  I don't think we 
> are unanimous.
> Anne
> 
> 
> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
> Of Counsel
> Lewis and Roca LLP . Suite 700
> One South Church Avenue . Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
> Tel (520) 629-4428 . Fax (520) 879-4725
> AAikman@xxxxxxxxx . www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman
> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
> intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
> agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this
 communication is prohibited.  If this communication
> was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the 
> original message.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM
> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed 
> Revised Footnote
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Are we unanimous on this issue?  I had the impression Anne was still
 concerned.
> 
> avri
> 
> On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Thanks Marika for clarification.
> >
> > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote 
> > (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council 
> > meeting.
> >
> >
> > Best regards
> > Wolf-Ulrich
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52
> > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri@xxxxxxx;
> > gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a
> > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
> >
> > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues
> > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also
> > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the
> > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been
> > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical 
> > Integration PDP:
> > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html).
> > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in
> > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following
> > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations:
> > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm.
> >
> > With best regards,
> >
> > Marika
> >
> > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful.  Whether or not the Board calls
> >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in
> >> initiation of a
 PDP seems less important substantively than the
> >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to  "scope,
> >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there
> >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the
> >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is
> >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an
> >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on
> >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a
> >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a
> >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status
> >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed
> >> where no consensus was reached in the event of
 termination or
> >> suspension?  We should not leave the Board in the position where it
> >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not
> >> answered our questions."  This is particularly unsatisfactory where the 
> >> GAC has asked the Board to address an issue.
> >> Anne
> >>
> >>
> >> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
> >> Of Counsel
> >> Lewis and Roca LLP . Suite 700
> >> One South Church Avenue . Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520)
> >> 629-4428 . Fax (520) 879-4725AAikman@xxxxxxxxx .
> >> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before
> >> printing this e-mail.
> >> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
> >>
 intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
> >> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
> >> agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
> >> hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
> >> copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
> >> was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete
> >> the original message.
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika
> >> Konings
> >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM
> >> To: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; avri@xxxxxxx; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a
> >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
> >>
> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the
> >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation
> >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process
> >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a
> >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue
 Report on the purpose of Whois
> >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of
> >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions
> >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of
> >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out
> >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no
> >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically
> >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a
> >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which
> >> the GNSO  Council can consult with the Board to provide information
> >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue
> >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO
> >>
 Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another
> >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board
> >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result
> >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to
> >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that 
> >> it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP.
> >>
> >> With best regards,
> >>
> >> Marika
> >>
> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx" <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding.
> >>>
>
 >>>
> >>> Best regards
> >>> Wolf-Ulrich
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Avri
> >>> Doria
> >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39
> >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a
> >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
>
 >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they
> >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP.
> >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers.
> >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs.  Had the Board asked for
> >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the 
> >>> PDP.
> >>> Specifically:
> >>>
> >>> "
> >>> March 212 20120314-1
> >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick'
> >>> Whois
> >>>
> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois
> >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011
> >>>
 (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109);
> >>>
> >>> ....
> >>> "
> >>>
> >>> "
> >>> November 2012 20121017-2
> >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the
> >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs.
> >>>
> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of
> >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of
> >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the
> >>> New gTLD Program.
> >>>
> >>> ....
> >>> "
> >>>
> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
>
 >>>
> >>> "
> >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report
> >>>
> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing
> >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual.
> >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the
> >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can
> >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing,
> >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report.
> >>>
> >>> ....
> >>>
> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP
> >>>
> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows:
> >>>
> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council,
>
 >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP.
> >>> No vote is required for such action.
> >>> "
> >>>
> >>> avri
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP
> >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm
> >>>> To:
 'Avri Doria' [avri@xxxxxxx]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx]
> >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a
> >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well.  The Board's role is to commit
> >>>> policy  that has been developed through the bottom up process into
> >>>> rule by way of  resolution.  Although the history of the Board's
> >>>> actions to date might prove  otherwise, in an ever-maturing
 ICANN
> >>>> environment we should expect the Board  to conform to ICANN's basic
> >>>> principles.
> >>>>
> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed.
> >>>>
> >>>> Kind regards,
> >>>>
> >>>> RA
> >>>>
> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff
> >>>> RNA Partners, Inc.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri
>
 >>>> Doria
> >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM
> >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a
> >>>> PDP--Proposed  Revised Footnote
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever
> >>>> suspended  a PDP that they mandated is an open question.  I expect
> >>>> they would either  wait, question the postponement, or make one
> >>>> their preemptory decisions.
> >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP -
> >>>> though
 they  can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this
> >>>> point, and in any case  think it is a separate issue from the
> >>>> suspension mechanism.  All other PDPs  are g-council decsions, even
> >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the  ACs.
> >>>>
> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks.
> >>>>
> >>>> avri
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Anne and all,
> >>>>>
>
 >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council
> >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation
> >>>> that the  council should follow a related board request. I think
> >>>> this could be the  case depending on a council debate following the
> >>>> board request but there is  no obligation to do so.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by
> >>>> Julie?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best regards
> >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von
> >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne
> >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43
> >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund;
> >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a
> >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This makes sense.  Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board
> >>>> says,
>
 >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an
> >>>> answer
> >>>> - go  back to the drawing board,"  then that is what will happen?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN.  If GNSO can't work effectively and
> >>>>> the
> >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's
> >>>> "oasis"
> >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure
> >>>> increases to  take control away from ICANN.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up
> >>>>> at
> >>>> the
> >>>> GNSO level.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Anne
>
 >>>>>
> >>>>> <image001.gif>Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP
> >>>>> . Suite 700 One South Church Avenue . Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
> >>>>> Tel (520) 629-4428 . Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@xxxxxxxxx .
> >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential
> >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named
> >>>>> within
> >>>> the message.
> >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or
>
 >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you
> >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution
> >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this
> >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply
> >>>>> e-mail and delete the
> >>>> original message.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx]
> >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM
> >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne;
> >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a
> >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public
> >>>> comment
> >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> jse
> >>>>>
> >>>>> j. scott evans -  head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo!
> >>>> Inc.
> >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>;
> >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a
> >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks Anne.  Then, would you want "until further notice" to be
> >>>> deleted?
>
 >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>> Julie
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a
> >>>> temporary
> >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a
> >>>> decision of the  GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or
> >>>> schedule of the PDP is not  considered a suspension."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM
> >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx"
> >>>> <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>,
> >>>> Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a
> >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"?
> >>>> If
> >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would
> >>>> not apply.
> >>>> Anne
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using
 TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx]
> >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm
> >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx]
> >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a
> >>>> PDP--Proposed
> >>>> Revised Footnote
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dear SCI members,
> >>>>>
>
 >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a
> >>>> clarification to
> >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP.
> >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold
> >>>> all
> >>>> caps:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a
> >>>> temporary
> >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a
> >>>> decision of the  GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change
> >>>> in milestones or schedule  of the PDP is not considered a suspension."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that
> >>>>> the
>
 >>>> footnote may be viewed in context.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is
> >>>>> accepted
> >>>> by the
> >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if
> >>>>> the
> >>>> SCI
> >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of
> >>>> Wednesday,
> >>>> 12
> >>>> December.**
> >>>>>
> >>>>> With best regards,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Julie
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
> >>>>>
>
 >>>>> 15.    Termination of PDP prior to Final Report
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the
> >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a
> >>>> motion that  passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of
> >>>> termination orsuspension.
> >>>> The
> >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a
> >>>> premature  termination or suspension of a PDP:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1.     Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to
> >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong
> >>>> support  or a consensus of its members despite significant time and
>
 >>>> resources being  dedicated to the PDP;
> >>>>> 2.     Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the
> >>>> initiation
> >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary;
> >>>> or  warranting a suspension; or
> >>>>> 3.     Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for
> >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired
> >>>> and unable  to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack
> >>>> of volunteer  participation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its
> >>>>> termination,
> >>>> the
> >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum
 first prior
> >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a
> >>>> temporary
> >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a
> >>>> decision of the  GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in
> >>>> milestones or schedule of  the PDP is not considered a suspension.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to
> >>>> www.lewisandroca.com.
> >>>>> Phoenix (602)262-5311           Reno (775)823-2900
> >>>>> Tucson (520)622-2090            Albuquerque(505)764-5400
> >>>>> Las
 Vegas (702)949-8200                 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380
> >>>>>  This message is intended only for the use of the individual or
> >>>> entity to
> >>>> which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the
> >>>> intended  recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for
> >>>> delivering the message  to the intended recipient, you are hereby
> >>>> notified that any dissemination,  distribution or copying of this
> >>>> message is strictly prohibited. If you have  received this
> >>>> communication in error, please notify us immediately by  replying
> >>>> to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.
> >>>>>  In accordance with Internal Revenue Service
 Circular 230, we
> >>>>> advise
> >>>> you
> >>>> that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not
> >>>> intended  or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any
> >>>> taxpayer for the  purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed
> >>>> on the taxpayer.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> > <Excerpt of PDP Manual Modified to Address Suspension of a
> > PDP.docx><Motion to Adopt Revised PDP Manual to Include the Suspension of a 
> > PDP.docx>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> --
> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca
> Executive-in-residence, Schulich
 School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
> Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org
> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
> Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
> Skype: alain.berranger
>  
>  
> AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ
> Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l?usage exclusif du destinataire 
> ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message sans en être le 
> destinataire, ou l?employé(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au 
> destinataire, est par les présentes avisée qu?il lui est strictement interdit 
> de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout 
> ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut être joint ou si ce document vous a 
> été communiqué par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le
 champ  et détruire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre 
coopération.
>  
> CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE
> This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of 
> the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other 
> than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for 
> forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, 
> distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in 
> part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail 
> in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all 
> copies. Thank you for your cooperation.
>  
>