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

["Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I could not open the later version, either using Julie's link or directly from 
the page http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures (accessed from the Council 
Activities dropdown menu at http://gnso.icann.org/en/).  I get an "unknown file 
type" error.

From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 10:12 AM
To: Julie Hedlund
Cc: Mary Wong; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to 
GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft)

Thanks for the explanation and the link Julie. The version of the GNSO 
Operating Procedures I was looking at is an older one found on this page: 
http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/44157.

Thanks again.

Amr

On May 2, 2014, at 3:43 PM, Julie Hedlund 
<julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:


Dear Amr,

The Board does not have to approve changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures.  
They do have to approve changes to the ICANN Bylaws, which may result in 
changes to the Operating Procedures, although that does not apply in this case. 
 Thus, the changes the Council approved with respect to resubmission of motions 
are considered to be final.  I have reviewed the current version of the 
procedures document at: 
http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-26mar14-en.pdf and the section 
4.3.3 and 4.3.4 (page 11 and 12 of the document) on resubmission of a motion 
and cannot see any redlining.  Do you have access to a version that shows 
redlines?  If so, can you point me to it?  There should only be one version of 
the document posted and it should be the final version.  There was, however, 
when the Council was considering the changes a draft version that contained 
redlining.  However, the final version is the one posted at the link listed 
above.

Best regards,
Julie

From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Friday, May 2, 2014 6:11 AM
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to 
GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft)

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<mailto: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<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>

* One World. One Internet. *

From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thursday, May 1, 2014 at 4:58 AM
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>

* One World. One Internet. *

From: Ron Andruff <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 6:13 PM
To: "'Shatan, Gregory S.'" 
<GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 'Amr Elsadr' 
<aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: 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: [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<http://www.rnapartners.com/>

From: 
owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.reedsmith.com<http://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<mailto: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<mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thursday 17 April 2014 03:40
To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.reedsmith.com<http://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>