Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO WG Definitions of Decision-Making Levels

[marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Ron,

Thank you for your kind words. We will make arrangements for an NPOC
alternate soonest.

I really think that the work the SCI, and its members, is doing is of great
benefit to the GNSO. I was not familiar with its mandate before joining
 and now, I can see the value in it even if I have been involved only for a
very short while.

Best,

Marie-laure


On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Ron Andruff <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> Dear Marie-Laure,
>
>
>
> We are sorry to see you go, particularly as you were the first member of
> the SCI from the NPOC!  Having said that, I am sure that I speak for all
> members of the Committee, I would like to wish you well in your new
> position and look forward to seeing you again at the up-coming ICANN
> meetings.
>
>
>
> From an administration point of view, we will look forward to welcoming
> your new NPOC alternate as and when she or he has been selected.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> RA
>
>
>
> *Ron Andruff*
>
> *RNA Partners*
>
> *www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> *
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *marie-laure Lemineur
> *Sent:* Monday, April 14, 2014 01:19
> *To:* gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx
>
> *Cc:* <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO WG Definitions of
> Decision-Making Levels
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> This is to inform you that, I have recently moved to another country for
> work reasons and the time zone where I am now based is UTC +7. Since this
> working group has its sessions scheduled at 19UTC, it makes it difficult
> for me to attend the conference calls.
>
>
>
> Therefore,  I have taken the decision to withdraw from this particular
> working group. Since Cintra is the main NPOC  representative and I am the
> alternate, I trust this won´t disrupt too much the work of the group. I
> wish you all the best of luck and please keep up with the good work you
> have all been doing so far!
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Marie-laure
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Shatan, Gregory S. <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>
> I've been giving this some thought (which unfortunately I kept to myself).
>  There are really 2 problems here.
>
> 1.  Dealing with the "consensus against" problem.  This is our explicit
> assignment.
> 2.  The Decision-Making Levels are not well-drafted in certain places.
>  There is inconsistent use of language (different words used to mean the
> same thing), inconsistent use of "unstated phrases" (leaving out the same
> or similar phrase when reiterating a point) creating ambiguity, etc.
>
> We are trying to solve both problems at the same time.  We started down
> this road because the fix needs to change all of the levels (except perhaps
> Divergence).  Then, slowly (as we became more comfortable with the
> document), we started to see the list's infirmities and tried to resolve
> them.  In my day job, I call this "drafting creep."  The problem with
> drafting creep is that it opens up issues beyond the one you were fixing,
> and intertwines those two sets of issues in a way that complicates review
> by others.  This is what Marika is seeing.
>
> I think we need to reverse course for the moment.  I think both (1) and
> (2) above are problems that need to be addressed.  But only (1) is really
> on our plate.
>
>  I'll make the moderately radical suggestion that we keep our hands off
> the current levels (in spite of their issues) and address the "consensus
> against" issue (which does affect all the levels) in a footnote (Amr's
> alternative 3, below).
>
> At some later time, we can then follow up and improve the drafting of the
> levels, separate from dealing with the "consensus against" issue.
>
> Just my thoughts.  I can try to draft a footnote today, but it's a bit of
> a messy day (3 ICANN/IG calls plus that "day job"), so I'm not sure if I
> can.
>
> Greg Shatan
>
> Gregory S. Shatan
> Partner
> Reed Smith LLP
> 599 Lexington Avenue
> New York, NY 10022
> 212.549.0275 (Phone)
> 917.816.6428 (Mobile)
> 212.521.5450 (Fax)
> gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> www.reedsmith.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr
> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 7:40 AM
> To: Marika Konings
> Cc: <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO WG Definitions of
> Decision-Making Levels
>
>
> Thanks for the feedback, Marika. I’d be grateful if you pointed out the
> specifics in the document on today’s call. I have to admit, I’ve been
> struggling with it. I’m no lawyer…, that’s for sure. :)
>
> In any case, the sub-team’s intent has always been to address revisions to
> take into consideration when consensus against WG recommendations is the
> situation, as divergence does not reflect this situation (as was the case
> with the IGO/INGO WG). That’s probably why the definition of divergence is
> the only one that hasn’t really been substantively changed. The focus has
> been on the rest so far.
>
> Still…, we do have the three ways to move forward that Ron had previously
> suggested:
>
> 1. Recommend changes in the definitions to the GNSO Council when the SCI
> finalizes them.
>
> 2. To not recommend any changes at this time, and postpone changes to see
> if they indeed become necessary in the future (although there have been
> some recommendations not to do this).
> 3. The third option is to not change the definitions, but instead to add a
> footnote to them indicating that the decision-making levels could be used
> when consensus is for or against WG recommendations.
>
> Thanks again, Marika.
>
> Amr
>
> On Apr 8, 2014, at 1:24 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > Apologies for having missed the F2F meeting in Singapore, but how do
> > these changes address the specific question that was put forward by
> > the GNSO Council on behalf of the IGO/INGO PDP WG: 'and specifically
> > requests the SCI to review and, if deemed appropriate, recommend
> > revised or additional language to apply to situations where working
> > groups may reach sufficient consensus against a particular proposal
> > such that the appropriate consensus level cannot accurately be
> > described as No Consensus/Divergence'? The additions / edits may be
> > helpful clarifications but they seem to go beyond the scope of the
> > specific question put forward to the SCI. But maybe I am missing
> > something, so I am looking forward to discussing this further on the
> call later today.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Marika
> >
> > On 08/04/14 13:12, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I¹ve taken a stab at some very slight word-smithing on the last draft
> >> of the WG consensus levels discussed at our F2F in Singapore. I¹ve
> >> tried to capture the comments made, and a little more and look
> >> forward to a discussion on this during today¹s call.
> >>
> >> I have admittedly done this only today, so have not had time to
> >> consult with the rest of the sub-team. Greg, Thomas, CintraŠ, my
> apologies.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> Amr
> >>
> >
> > <default.xml>
>
>
>
>                                                                 * * *
>
> This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered
> confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in
> error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by
> reply
> e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy
> it or
> use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
> person. Thank you for your cooperation.
>
>                                                                 * * *
>
> To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we
> inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal
> tax
> advice contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not
> intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1)
> avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state
> and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
> party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
>
> Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
>
>
>