Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft)

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Mary. One question: Wouldn’t the proposed changes here need to be 
published for public comment as well? There are still changes being recommended 
to the operating procedures, right? Does it make a difference which section the 
reference to resubmitted motions lands?

Thanks again.

Amr

On Apr 30, 2014, at 8:56 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Dear SCI members,
> 
> Please find attached the latest version of the proposed language relating to 
> Waivers/Exceptions for motions in the GNSO Operating Procedures. As noted in 
> last week’s call, the Consensus Call for this issue will be conducted via 
> this email list.
> 
> Note, however, that we are suggesting a slight change to the language 
> circulated by Greg and discussed in the email thread below. In reviewing the 
> proposed language prior to circulation for a Consensus Call, we noted that 
> the suggested Explanation in Greg’s latest email (below) would entail a 
> further change to the revised Resubmission of a Motion language in the GNSO 
> Operating Procedures, which initial revisions were approved by the GNSO 
> Council (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201403). As any 
> further changes will have to be published for public comment, an alternative 
> solution might be to add a sentence to the proposed Waivers/Exception 
> language to address the concern voiced by Amr in an earlier email. 
> 
> Please indicate whether you, on behalf of your respective stakeholder groups 
> and/or constituencies, support or do not support the attached proposed 
> language. If in light of this email note you wish to discuss the issue 
> further prior to concluding the Consensus Call, please indicate this as well.
> 
> Thank you all! A second email relating to a Consensus Call for the separate 
> issue of language relating to Working Group Consensus Levels will follow 
> shortly.
> 
> Cheers
> Mary
> 
> Mary Wong
> Senior Policy Director
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> * One World. One Internet. *
> 
> From: Ron Andruff <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 6:13 PM
> To: "'Shatan, Gregory S.'" <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 'Amr Elsadr' 
> <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, 
> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating 
> Procedures: Revised Draft
> 
>> Thanks Greg and Amr.  This looks like a good solution to me as well.
>>  
>> Kind regards,
>>  
>> RA
>>  
>> Ron Andruff
>> RNA Partners
>> www.rnapartners.com
>>  
>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Shatan, Gregory 
>> S.
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 20:51
>> To: 'Amr Elsadr'
>> Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating 
>> Procedures: Revised Draft
>>  
>> I think the solution to this problem is to revise the language quoted below 
>> and keep the waiver section as is.
>>  
>> For example:
>>  
>> “1. Explanation: The Councilor submitting the motion must also submit an 
>> explanation for the resubmission of the motion. The explanation need not 
>> accompany the motion when it is resubmitted; however, the explanation must 
>> be submitted no later than the deadline for submitting the motion (i.e., no 
>> later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day 10 calendar 
>> days before the Council meeting at which the motion is to be reconsidered, 
>> unless the requirements for late submission in Section 3.3.2 are also met). 
>> The explanation does not need to meet any requirements other than being 
>> submitted in a timely manner.”
>>  
>> Thoughts?
>>  
>> Greg
>>  
>> From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 4:53 PM
>> To: Shatan, Gregory S.
>> Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating 
>> Procedures: Revised Draft
>>  
>> Hi Greg and all,
>>  
>> I know I’ve brought this up repetitively and I hate being a nag, but there’s 
>> still an inconvenient loophole in this text regarding resubmission of 
>> motions. On its meeting of March 26th, 2014, the GNSO Council approved the 
>> SCI recommendation to amend the GNSO Operating Procedures by adding sections 
>> 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 detailing the guidelines of motions being resubmitted. 
>> Section 4.3.3, claus number 1 reads as follows:
>>  
>>> “1. Explanation: The Councilor submitting the motion must also submit an 
>>> explanation for the resubmission of the motion. The explanation need not 
>>> accompany the motion when it is resubmitted; however, the explanation must 
>>> be submitted no later than the deadline for submitting the motion (i.e., no 
>>> later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day 10 calendar 
>>> days before the Council meeting at which the motion is to be reconsidered). 
>>> The explanation does not need to meet any requirements other than being 
>>> submitted in a timely manner.”
>>  
>> If the SCI determines that it would like the 10-day rule waiver to also 
>> apply to motions being resubmitted (and not exclusively to motions being 
>> submitted for the first time) in its recommendation to the Council, then 
>> there needs to be clarifying text to that effect. If the SCI does not 
>> recommend that the waiver should apply to resubmitted motions, then no 
>> further action is necessary. If the former is true, and not the latter, the 
>> the way I read it, the required clarification should either be added as a 
>> fourth bullet to 3.3.2 referencing 4.3.3, or perhaps an added numbered item 
>> to 4.3.4 (Limitations and Exceptions to Resubmission of a Motion) referring 
>> to the waiver rule in 3.3.2. Without these changes, I can’t see how the text 
>> of the operating procedures will support the waiver rule being applied to 
>> resubmitted motions in the event that the need arises.
>>  
>> Thanks.
>>  
>> Amr
>>  
>> On Apr 22, 2014, at 9:53 PM, Shatan, Gregory S. <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
>> wrote:
>>  
>> 
>> As discussed today on the SCI call, I agree with Marika’s comment below, and 
>> I have deleted the sentence in question.  In the attached draft, I have 
>> accepted all the changes from the prior draft and then deleted that 
>> sentence.  There were no other comments on the list or on the call. 
>>  
>> I would suggest that this draft should be considered final (subject only to 
>> “accepting” the deletion of the sentence so that this is a clean document) 
>> for purposes of moving to the next step with this amendment to the Operating 
>> Procedures.
>> 
>> 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
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx] 
>> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:34 AM
>> To: Shatan, Gregory S.; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating 
>> Procedures: Revised Draft
>>  
>> Thanks, Greg. I'm still not clear to why it would say 'For the avoidance of 
>> doubt, if the requirements above are not met, the motion shall not be 
>> considered “submitted”? Why can't it be considered submitted, but just not 
>> eligible to be considered for a vote at the meeting? The current practice is 
>> also that if a motion is submitted after the deadline it may get discussed, 
>> just not voted on during the meeting, but there is no need to resubmit it 
>> for the next meeting as it is already considered submitted and automatically 
>> carried over. Maybe I'm missing something?
>>  
>> Best regards,
>>  
>> Marika 
>>  
>> From: <Shatan>, "Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Thursday 17 April 2014 03:40
>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating 
>> Procedures: Revised Draft
>>  
>> All:
>>  
>> Following up on our last meeting, I attach a revised version of the 
>> amendment to the Operating Procedures dealing with “late” submission of a 
>> motion, with my revisions marked in “track changes.” 
>>  
>> I look forward to your comments.
>>  
>> Best regards,
>>  
>> Greg
>>  
>> Gregory S. Shatan
>> Deputy Chair | Tech Transactions Group
>> IP | Technology | Media
>> ReedSmithLLP
>> The business of relationships
>> 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
>> <Motion waiver draft language - 22 April 2014.DOC>
>>  
> <Proposed Language f#1D7F33E.doc>