Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] RE: Draft GNSO Fast Track PDP & Chuck's edit of the Draft GNSO Guidance Process: documents
Anne, it is my understanding that the EDDP would mainly be used in the case of consensus policies as otherwise the Council could just as easily use the GNSO Guidance Process. The criteria for invoking an EDDP specifically focus on modifying consensus policies after they have been adopted / implemented or issues that have been previously scoped as part of a PDP or other effort. Unless an input request from the Board would meet these criteria, an EDDP could not be initiated by the GNSO Council. Best regards, Marika From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>> Date: Wednesday 19 November 2014 23:07 To: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>>, "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>" <gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>> Cc: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxxxx>> Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] RE: Draft GNSO Fast Track PDP & Chuck's edit of the Draft GNSO Guidance Process: documents Chuck, I agree with you but given that EPDP may also be used where Consensus Policy is not affected, it seems to me that GNSO might sometimes be trying to determine whether to use the GGP or the EPDP to address a request for input from the ICANN Board. Unless I completely misunderstand, it seems to me possible that the ICANN Board might request “Guidance”, but the Council might determine EPDP is required. Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D0040A.973F3370] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 12:54 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Mary Wong'; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: jscottevans@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: Draft GNSO Fast Track PDP & Chuck's edit of the Draft GNSO Guidance Process: documents I will comment further when I am on my laptop but my understanding is that this totally different than the Guidance Process. Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>> Date:11/19/2014 2:44 PM (GMT-05:00) To: 'Mary Wong' <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>>, gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, jscottevans@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: Draft GNSO Fast Track PDP & Chuck's edit of the Draft GNSO Guidance Process: documents Many thanks, Mary. Attached please see a few comments/questions regarding the Expedited PDP draft. As previously mentioned, I think it is important that the WG look at the interaction between the Guidance Process and the Expedited PDP provisions, especially as to which one to use in which circumstances. In this regard, my initial impressions prior to discussion with the WG on the call are as follows: 1. EPDP should require Council vote affirming that appropriate circumstances as laid out in the draft process do in fact obtain. I think we are saying this requires Supermajority vote when Consensus Policy is involved, but it may not be necessary to require Supermajority vote when Consensus Policy is not involved. The point of my comments in the draft is to seek certainty in connection with any Council vote on whether these circumstances obtain. In other words, I think the Council vote, once taken, should not be open to question on this point. 2. Only the Council should initiate EPDP by vote and that neither the Board nor an AC should be able to initiate EPDP. 3. I think that the Board and ACs SHOULD be able to initiate a Guidance Process and that if the GNSO Council believes that Guidance Process is insufficient, it should initiate EPDP. 4. An EPDP which fails to garner a Supermajority vote for initiation should be eligible for consideration to initiate a Guidance Process at the same GNSO Council meeting UNLESS the issue involves a change in Consensus Policy. 5. It should be clear that staff will assist in preparation of the scoping document. This may be assumed but is it clear enough? 6. It is not clear to me from the EPDP manual provisions whether the scoping requirements are mandatory or “recommended” as contained in the title of the provision. (The text itself says “must…at a minimum”. Thanks for all your hard work in the drafting under significant time pressure I am sure. (As a footnote, I think we should drop the term “guidance” in the file name for the EPDP since we are dealing with the differences between the GGP “Guidance” process and the Expedited PDP, which is arguably a different animal for the Guidance Process.) Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D003F5.22177D60] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> [mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 5:00 PM To: gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Draft GNSO Fast Track PDP & Chuck's edit of the Draft GNSO Guidance Process: documents Dear WG members, Please find attached for your review: (1) a first draft of the proposed GNSO Fast Track (Expedited) Policy Development Process, with certain comments and questions from staff for your further discussion and guidance; and (2) the previously-circulated draft proposed GNSO Guidance Process, with Chuck’s suggested edits and comments. We look forward to further discussion on these documents. Please note that the third document, on the proposed GNSO Input Process, is in preparation and will be circulated as soon as possible. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. Attachment:
image001.gif |
