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

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I was ready to vote in favour of this recommendation. Anne, could you please 
clarify the problems you foresee with the time of submission of “reports” and 
public comments? I’m afraid I may have missed something important.

Thanks.

Amr

On May 7, 2014, at 12:39 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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
>  
> <image001.gif>
> 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 | www.LRRLaw.com
>  
> <image002.jpg>
> 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
>  
> * 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>
>  
> 
> 
> 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.