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

["Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Ron, Mary, et al,

Unlike the WG Consensus Guidelines proposal,  I do not believe this waiver 
issue is ripe for Consensus Call.  There seem to be some questions “swirling” 
that require clarification – including my question about the time of submission 
of “reports” and the issue of public comment.  It seems the next call may be 
scheduled in the middle of INTA in Hong Kong.  Greg and I will need to check 
this.
Thank you,
Anne

[cid:image001.gif@01CF6941.5A2E53D0]

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel

Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | Suite 700

One South Church Avenue | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725

AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> | 
www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/>




[cid:image002.jpg@01CF6941.5A2E53D0]

Lewis and Roca LLP is now Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP.


From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 11:56 AM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to 
GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft)

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>


________________________________

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the 
individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message 
or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent 
responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient 
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this 
message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. 
The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be 
privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the 
intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy 
Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if 
this message or any attachments contains any tax advice, such tax advice was 
not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for 
the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.