RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP

["Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>]

I had understood the language to specify that the elements required are the 
reasons for the recommended action and the consensus status per WG guidelines, 
if applicable. That does not seem to require further specification to me, but 
others may feel differently. Anne

Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)

-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Andruff [randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Received: Monday, 11 Feb 2013, 11:28am
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx [gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx]
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension 
/ termination of a PDP

Dear all,

Thank you, Marika, for the clarifying points noted below.

I would particularly like to draw Committee Members’ attention to the last 
sentence under the 3rd bullet: “If the SCI insists on requiring a 'Termination 
Report' or 'Suspension Report', it will be important to define which 
information is expected to be contained in such report as it is currently 
nowhere defined in the PDP manual.”.  This is an important consideration in 
finalizing the suspension/termination language.

Thank you,

RA

Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.<http://www.rnapartners.com>
________________________________
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 4:27 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / 
termination of a PDP

Anne,

As requested, please find attached the redline comparing the previous version 
from J. Scott with the latest one you circulated. A couple of comments:

  *   PDP Team is used throughout the PDP Manual as, even though the WG model 
is currently the preferred option to conduct a PDP, it foresees the possibility 
for the GNSO Council to choose another model should it decide so (e.g. 
Committee of the whole), hence the use of the term 'PDP Team'.
  *   There is a timing issue with having a seconded motion before a public 
comment period can be opened. The current practice of the GNSO Council is to 
only allow for one deferral of a motion, while a public comment forum may cover 
at least two Council meetings. It is not clear to me why a properly seconded 
motion would be needed before a public comment forum may be initiated (a public 
comment forum can be initiated by the Council or WG at any time it wants, there 
is no motion required to do so).
  *   Instead of mandating a written report, I had suggested that in order to 
allow for flexibility, there would be more discretion on the part of the 
Council liaison and/or WG to decide on the format in which they 'convey to the 
GNSO Council the reasons for the recommended action to be taken and, if 
applicable, the points of view represented in the Working Group and the 
consensus status (as defined by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines) at the time 
such action is recommended' (for example, this could be in the form of an 
email, letter or oral update to the GNSO Council). Especially since a safeguard 
has been added to require a written report at the request of any Council 
member, AC or Board. If the SCI insists on requiring a 'Termination Report' or 
'Suspension Report', it will be important to define which information is 
expected to be contained in such report as it is currently nowhere defined in 
the PDP manual.
With best regards,

Marika

From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Saturday 9 February 2013 01:25
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP

Marisa,
I have taken your language and condensed it a bit as well as trying to clarify 
that if there is no recommendation from the WG before the Council, then there 
would have to be a properly seconded motion in order to require the Council to 
seek public comment.

I don't think anyone was intending to completely eliminate the requirement for 
a written report when the WG was making the recommendation.  That written 
Termination Report or Suspension Report was mandatory where the recommendation 
for suspension or termination came from the WG.   That improvement was at the 
very heart of this initiative and so that language has been added back where 
you had deleted it.

On a more minor note, I also noticed that the earlier paragraphs in this same 
section refer to "PDP Team" and not "PDP Working Group".  So I changed all the 
references to PDP Team.  It seems it should be one or the other consistently 
throughout unless there is some difference I do not appreciate between a PDP 
Team and PDP WG.  I also think it would be fine for all references to be to PDP 
WG and that is the term I hear used more often.

Attached is a new Feb 8 draft with the changes accepted.  While working on 
this, I ended up losing track of the status of my redline and would appreciate 
it if you could run a comparison btween this and the language the SCI reviewed 
in its last call so that all members can see the proposed changes in my draft.

Thank you,
Anne



[cid:image001.gif@01CE085B.9A4E9350]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 theoriginal 
message.


________________________________
From: 
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: Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:10 AM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised language regarding suspension / 
termination of a PDP
Dear All,

As discussed yesterday, please find attached for your review the suggested 
modifications to the last version of the language concerning the termination or 
suspension of a PDP.

With best regards,

Marika



________________________________

For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to 
www.lewisandroca.com<http://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.