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

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yeah…, I think so. Thanks Mary. It works out fine in both cases anyway.

One more question…, and excuse my inexperience :); Does the ICANN board need to 
approve changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures after they are approved by the 
Council? Does that have anything to do with the resubmission language still 
being in red-line in the operating procedures document?

Thanks again, Mary.

Amr

On May 1, 2014, at 4:02 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Amr, yes; any proposed changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures, including 
> to the WG Guidelines, need to go out for public comment – and that’s the rub 
> with the interplay here between the Resubmission of a Motion language 
> (published for public comment and approved) and the Waiver/Exception proposal 
> (not yet published). It may be awkward to send the Resubmission language out 
> AGAIN for public comment so the more streamlined course of action would be to 
> address the overlap in the Waiver/Exception language now. After the 
> Waiver/Exception language is approved by the SCI, it will then need to go out 
> for public comment – which we recommend be done together with any other 
> proposed changes the SCI may wish to make, e.g. Voting by Email.
> 
> I hope this helps clarify … ?
> 
> 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: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thursday, May 1, 2014 at 4:58 AM
> To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions 
> to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft)
> 
>> 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>
>>