Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft)
Greg, You should get an option to either save the file or to choose an application, in which case choose Adobe Acrobat and click "open." If you don't get that option or it doesn't work for you, please let me know. Thanks! Julie From: <Shatan>, "Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Friday, May 2, 2014 10:27 AM To: 'Amr Elsadr' <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>, "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) I could not open the later version, either using Julie¹s 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 ³unknown file type² 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> 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> Date: Friday, May 2, 2014 6:11 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) 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 that¹s 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: Wouldn¹t 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 week¹s 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 Greg¹s 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 > <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 >> <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: >> >> >> >> ³1. 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.² >> >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx <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 I¹ve brought this up repetitively and I hate being a nag, but there¹s >> 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: >> >> >>> >>> ³1. 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.² >> >> >> >> 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 can¹t 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 Marika¹s 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 >> ³accepting² 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 >> <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 ³submitted²? 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 ³late² submission of a motion, with >> my revisions marked in ³track changes.² >> >> >> >> 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> > Attachment:
smime.p7s
|