[gnso-policyimpl-wg] RE: Draft GNSO Fast Track PDP & Chuck's edit of the Draft GNSO Guidance Process: documents

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Anne,

I think that may be possible and that seems okay to me at first glance.  Do you 
agree?

Chuck

From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 5:08 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Mary Wong'; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: jscottevans@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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@01D00423.E356FE00]

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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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.