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

["Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The current tally on the "question 4" revision is essentially a dead heat 
between proposals B and C (these proposals are repasted below the tally for 
convenience).  It would be helpful if those who haven't yet weighed in would do 
so, so that this point could be put to bed.

Tally
B: 1
C: 1
B or C (preference to B):  2
B or C (preference to C): 1
A, B or C (preference to C): 1
Whatever the group decides: 2
Comments
Kristine Rosette: Slight preference for B but C is fine, too.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I'm also OK with option C (or B if that gets consensus 
support)
Mikey O'Connor:  i'm comfortable with either of options B or C, but like B a 
bit better because it's a little less prescriptive.
Anne Aikman-Scalese: I would go with Option B.
Tim Ruiz: I am choosing to bow out of any further discussion on this question 
and will go with whoever is the squeekiest wheel ;-)
Greg Shatan:  Option C.
Jordyn Buchanan: I'm with Tim--I don't think this matters at all, so I'm happy 
to go along with whatever the rest of the group decides.
Chuck Gomes: I like Greg's added detail [in Option C] a lot.  I think it 
provide added context for the WG to consider that seems quite useful to me.  I 
think A, B & C sufficiently raise a fundamental issue that should be dealt with 
so I prefer one of them to D.

Proposed Alternative Revisions

B: 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?

C:  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?



From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 5:09 PM
To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Tim Ruiz
Cc: Holly Raiche; Mike O'Connor; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Shatan, Gregory S.; 
gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Marika Konings
Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter

Slight preference for B but C is fine, too.

From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr [mailto:langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 1:22 PM
To: Tim Ruiz
Cc: Holly Raiche; Mike O'Connor; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Shatan, Gregory S.; 
Rosette, Kristina; 
gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>; Marika 
Konings
Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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@<mailto:GShatan@>reedsmith.com<http://reedsmith.com/>]
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 9:08 AM
To: 'Tim Ruiz'; Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Cc: Rosette, Kristina; Holly Raiche; 
gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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@<mailto:tim@>godaddy.com<http://godaddy.com/>]
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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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> 
[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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.reedsmith.com<http://www.reedsmith.com/>
From: 
owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Holly Raiche
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 10:49 AM
To: gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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> 
[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<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://www.haven2.com/>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, 
Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)