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

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx>]

I'm also OK with option C (or B if that gets consensus support)
*Cheryl Langdon-Orr ...  **(CLO)*
 http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr


On 3 July 2013 02:59, Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  Personally, I think we have way over thought this question. Having been
> on a plethora of WGs, I know that in the end it really does not matter one
> way or the other since this is just a question to provoke thought. Most of
> us, or others close to us, will end up on the WG anyway and so any argument
> you do not get your way with here can still be argued then.
>
>  Given that, I am choosing to bow out of any further discussion on this
> question and will go with whoever is the squeekiest wheel ;-)
>
>  Tim
>
>
> On Jul 2, 2013, at 12:45 PM, "Holly Raiche" <h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>  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<http://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
> implementation*as 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<http://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<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<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<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<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* <http://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* <http://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.)
>
>
>