Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

i would be uncomfortable with Option A, leaving the language unchanged -- i 
think we've learned a lot from this conversation and i'd hate to lose the 
opportunity to capture that learning.

i feel the same about Option D, deleting the question -- plus i agree with Anne 
that this is an important topic that we know we're going to cover, so let's 
have it in the Charter.

i'm comfortable with either of options B or C, but like B a bit better because 
it's a little less prescriptive.

m
 
On Jul 2, 2013, at 11:15 AM, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> I would go with Option B.
>  
> <image001.gif>Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
> Of Counsel
> Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700
> One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
> Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725
> AAikman@xxxxxxxxx • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman
> 
> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
> intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the 
> agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or 
> copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
> was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the 
> original message.
>  
> 
> From: Shatan, Gregory S. [mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 9:08 AM
> To: 'Tim Ruiz'; Aikman-Scalese, Anne
> Cc: Rosette, Kristina; Holly Raiche; gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Marika 
> Konings
> Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter
> 
> I don’t think the question as currently stated is one the WG should or could 
> ask or answer.
>  
> As currently stated the question is:
>  
> Under what circumstances, if any, may  the GNSO Council make recommendations 
> or state positions to the Board as a representative of the GNSO as a whole?
>  
> I think the simplest fix to the question is the following:
>  
> Under what circumstances, if any, may  the GNSO Council make recommendations 
> or state positions to the Board on matters of policy and implementationas a 
> representative of the GNSO as a whole?
>  
> While I don’t think it digs deep enough (and I prefer the more robust changes 
> suggested in my prior email and copied below), I think it at least keeps the 
> question from going out of bounds.
>  
> May I suggest a quick show of support for one of the following alternatives:
>  
> A.      Keep the language unchanged.
> B.      Make the change above (adding “on matters of policy and 
> implementation”).
> C.      Make the change below (adopting the questions from my prior email).
> D.      Delete the entire sentence.
>  
> Language from my prior email: 
>  
> Under what circumstances, if any, may  the GNSO Council make recommendations 
> or state positions on matters of either (a) policy or (b) implementation to 
> the Board?  Under what circumstances does the GNSO Council speak as a 
> representative of the GNSO as a whole when making these recommendations or 
> statements? 
>  
> What status (or statuses) should these GNSO Council recommendations or 
> statements have in the eyes of the Board (e.g., when, if ever, should these 
> recommendations or statements be considered as formal “advice” or “policy 
> recommendations” of the GNSO)? If the Board decides to take action that is 
> not consistent with a GNSO Council recommendation or statement, under what 
> circumstances, if any, should the Board be required to state the reasons why 
> and to consult with the GNSO Council to attempt to find a mutually acceptable 
> solution?
>  
> Greg
>  
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 11:50 AM
> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
> Cc: Tim Ruiz; Shatan, Gregory S.; Rosette, Kristina; Holly Raiche; 
> gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Marika Konings
> Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter
>  
> Exactly, that's why it doesn't really need to be asked.
>  
> Tim
>  
> 
> On Jul 2, 2013, at 11:40 AM, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> We can delete the question, but it won't stop the WG from asking it.  It is 
> at the heart of the reason for the WG's existence.
>  
> <image001.gif>Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
> Of Counsel
> Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700
> One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
> Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725
> AAikman@xxxxxxxxx • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman
> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
> intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the 
> agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or 
> copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
> was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the 
> original message.
>  
>  
> From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 8:38 AM
> To: Shatan, Gregory S.
> Cc: Rosette, Kristina; Holly Raiche; gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Marika 
> Konings
> Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter
> 
> For crying out loud, let's just delete the darn question!
>  
> Tim
>  
> 
> On Jul 2, 2013, at 11:31 AM, "Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> wrote:
> 
> I have to object as well, for the reasons stated in my prior email, which was 
> circulated to the group prior to Holly’s executive decision.  I don’t think 
> this question should be in the charter as it currently stands.  It is far too 
> broad and ambiguous and extends well beyond the remit of the WG. 
> I would prefer to work this out on the list, so that I can stand behind the 
> charter as drafted
> 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: owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 11:14 AM
> To: Holly Raiche; gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Marika Konings
> Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter
> I am troubled by the fact that this executive decision about wording was made 
> barely 18 hours after the last call and well before the “23.59 UTC on Tuesday 
> 2 July. “ set forth in Marika’s email.
> From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Holly Raiche
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 10:49 AM
> To: gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Marika Konings
> Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter
> Hi Everyone
> In the interests of my sleep, I am making an executive decision to adopt 
> Chuck's wording of question 4 (based on the reasoning that has been 
> expressed), as follows:
> Under what circumstances, if any, may  the GNSO Council make recommendations 
> or state positions to the Board as a representative of the GNSO as a whole?
> The other suggestion I will accept is the suggestion to amend the motion 
> (made by Chuck) giving a time line of 7 days for a response.
> Marika - would you please make those two changes.
> That done, we still do not need the next call (and I can sleep)
> Thanks
> Holly
> On 02/07/2013, at 10:54 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> The reason I added the last qualification is because of what Mikey said in 
> his response to my suggested wording:  The Board is in the habit of asking 
> the GNSO Council for advice with a short deadline and then treating it as a 
> broader GNSO position.  I think that is inappropriate on the part of the 
> Board but the reality is that it happens.  
> 
> At the same, time I wouldn't object if that qualifier was deleted as Wolf 
> suggests.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of WUKnoben
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 4:05 AM
> To: Holly Raiche; gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Marika Konings
> Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter
> 
> 
> Good morning!
> 
> I'm fine with Chuck's rewording except for the last part "... as a 
> representative of the GNSO as a whole?".
> 
> I'm convinced that a discussion about the role of the council vs (and of) the 
> GNSO is necessary and urgent but I wonder whether this debate may overload 
> the WG mandate.
> It should definitely be discussed during the coming GNSO review.
> 
> My suggestion to question 4: "Under what circumstances, if any, may  the GNSO 
> Council make recommendations or state positions to the Board?"
> 
> Nevertheless I would join any wording which makes early mornings in Down 
> Under more convenient :-)
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
> 
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> From: Holly Raiche
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 8:50 AM
> To: gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Marika Konings
> Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter
> 
> Folks
> 
> If there is one thing I do NOT want to do, it is have another 5.00am meeting 
> in two days time (particularly since I have a 1.00am call that morning!)
> 
> SOOooo
> 
> From what I have gathered from the emails, there are really only two changes 
> to the charter that Marika sent out (and thank you Marika for the very quick 
> turn around)
> 
> The first is really wording - first spotted by Eduardo and then cleaned up a 
> bit
> 
> The other was question 4 - and from the emails, I think people are happy to 
> go with ChucK's rewording of it.
> 
> I have incorporated those changes only into a clean copy - and what I want 
> from everyone is either confirmation that this is what can go forward, or not 
> (and if not, please, what do you want changed - with proposed wording - and 
> why)  Otherwise, if I don't hear from you, this is what we proceed with
> 
> And thank you one and all for your time, diligence and patience
> 
> Holly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> * * *
> 
> 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
>  
> 
> For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to 
> www.lewisandroca.com.
> 
> Phoenix (602)262-5311
>     
> Reno (775)823-2900
> Tucson (520)622-2090
>     
> Albuquerque (505)764-5400
> Las Vegas (702)949-8200
>     
> Silicon Valley (650)391-1380
>   This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to 
> which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended 
> recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to 
> the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, 
> distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have 
> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by 
> replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.
> 
>   In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you 
> that if this email 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.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to 
> www.lewisandroca.com.
> 
> Phoenix (602)262-5311         Reno (775)823-2900
> Tucson (520)622-2090          Albuquerque (505)764-5400
> Las Vegas (702)949-8200               Silicon Valley (650)391-1380
> 
>   This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to 
> which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended 
> recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to 
> the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, 
> distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have 
> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by 
> replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.
> 
>   In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you 
> that if this email 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP 
(ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)