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

[Holly Raiche <h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Just to clarify - we are talking abut the questions - so while whatever is 
decided is in the document (or not) we are putting forward, we are talking 
about just questions to be considered

Holly
On 03/07/2013, at 2:37 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:

> 
> 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.)
>