ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-improvem-impl-sc]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: "Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposal Regarding GNSO WG Definitions of Decision-Making Levels
  • From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 12:36:41 -0700

Greg,

I have added this to the wiki at:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/22+April+2014.

Best regards,
Julie

On 4/18/14 2:42 PM, "Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>All:
>
>I am sending to the entire SCI a proposal relating to the "consensus
>(etc.) against" issue we have been discussing.  This was circulated to
>the subteam (Amr, Cintra, Thomas and Mary) earlier this week.  Based on
>discussions in and after Singapore, this proposal does not change the
>Decision-Making Levels language in the text of the PDP Manual.  Instead,
>this proposal contains a new explanatory footnote appended to the list of
>existing consensus levels.
>
>(Please note that I have included the discussion of "divergence" in the
>footnote because a few people in the IGO/INGO Working Group insisted that
>the situation should be described as "Divergence" even though it was
>clear that a strong majority of the Working Group had coalesced around a
>position actively opposing a recommendation. While their position was (in
>my opinion) more political than logical, I thought it should be dealt
>with nonetheless.)
>
>I suggest that, if and when this is handed up to the GNSO Council, we
>should note to the Council that we found a number of notable
>linguistic/drafting flaws in the consensus levels.  However, after prior
>revisions and deliberation, we restrained ourselves from fixing these
>flaws at this time so that the "consensus against" issue could be dealt
>with in isolation and with clarity.  I suggest that we recommend that the
>drafting issues be dealt with in the near future.
>
>I look forward to your comments.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Greg
>
>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
>
>
>
>                                                                * * *
>
>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

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy