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

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

Eric, I am happy for your time with your son.  I think I would understand your 
comments better if you would propose modified language.  Thank you, Anne


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.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 10:42 AM
To: Shatan, Gregory S.
Cc: 'Tim Ruiz'; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Rosette, Kristina; Holly Raiche; 
gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Marika Konings
Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter


Colleagues,

First, apologies for missing yesterday's call, it was 
first-day-of-summer-school for my profoundly autistic son, and call time is 
noon my time, when I pick him up, and he had a good day and wanted to go look 
for vhs tapes at the local St. Vinnies (thrift), so I'd a non-maskable 
interrupt.

Second, the "if necessary" clause stands out like a red flag. It offers an 
answer of "none" to the "circumstances" question, however the dependent clause 
ends.

Third, as we know, the Board occasionally offers "LM"* questions with response 
expectations shorter than the GNSO's motion->constituencies cycle allows, 
leaving the Council with no response possible except from the vote of the 
Councilors, rather than the votes or other decision making means of the 
constituencies.

So a "none" answer (see para 2, above) means time doesn't matter. As this seems 
absurd (the Board asking a question for which no party is capable of responding 
before the question is moot), time could be a bit more explicit in the question.

Eric

* "LM" are midway between "I" for Implementation and "P" for Policy.



----------------------
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