RE: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Proposed agenda - Policy & Implementation WG Meeting

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

I agree with Anne including adding an explanation of ‘non-binding’.

Chuck

From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 2:58 PM
To: 'Marika Konings'; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; jscottevans@xxxxxxxxxxx; migraham@xxxxxxxxxxx; 
gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Proposed agenda - Policy & Implementation WG 
Meeting

I look forward to discussing these questions on the call.  Meanwhile, I do 
think it would be very help for the distinctions that Markika enumerated to 
actually appear in the comparison chart and the manuals at the very beginning 
in relation to the 3 different processes.  That description was as follows:


  *   Is the Council intending to provide non-binding input – then a GIP should 
be used.
  *   Is the Council intending to provide guidance that will require board 
consideration, but is not expected to result in new contractual obligations for 
contracted parties – then a GGP should be used.
  *   Is the Council intending to develop recommendations resulting in new 
contractual obligations for contracted parties that meet the criteria for 
“consensus policies" than a PDP or EPDP (if qualifying criteria are met) should 
be used.
I also need clarification as to what “non-binding” means in relation to GIP.  
Are we talking about the threshold the Board must overcome in order to reject a 
GNSO recommendation?  Does this mean results of GNSO Input Process are in 
effect treated like public comments?

[cid:image001.gif@01D01A0A.FA85EB20]

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 Marika Konings
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 9:59 AM
To: Marika Konings; 
gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Proposed agenda - Policy & Implementation WG 
Meeting

Dear all,

As no further comments / input was received on the different processes, the 
chairs would like to propose a slightly modified agenda for today’s meeting:

1.     Roll Call / SOI
2.     Develop preliminary answers to remaining questions
o    Should an Advisory Committee or the Board have the ability to initiate a 
GGP (similar to their ability to do so for a PDP)? Chuck and Anne have 
suggested in their comments that this should be possible.
o    For an EPDP, it is currently proposed that only the GNSO Council can 
initiate this process, although an AC/Board could request the GNSO Council to 
consider doing so. Chuck and Anne have supported this approach in their 
comments. Do others agree or have different views?
o    The proposed voting threshold for initiating a GGP is the same as for 
initiating a PDP (an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each 
House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House) - do WG members agree?
o    The proposed voting threshold for approving the GGP Final Report is 
supermajority – do WG members agree? (Note, for a PDP vote, if these are not 
adopted by a supermajority vote, there is a lower threshold for the Board to 
overturn these, should the same apply here or if there is no supermajority 
report, the GGD Final Report fails?)
o    Termination of a GGP – it is proposed that a simple majority vote would be 
sufficient to terminate a GGP prior to delivery of the Final Report (compared 
to a supermajority vote for a PDP) - do WG members agree?
3.     Confirm next steps & next meeting

Best regards,

Marika

From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tuesday 16 December 2014 17:37
To: "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Proposed agenda - Policy & Implementation WG 
Meeting

Dear All,

Please find below the proposed agenda for the next Policy & Implementation 
Working Group meeting which is scheduled for Wednesday 17 December at 20.00 
UTC. As a reminder, any comments / edits on the latest version of the GNSO 
Input Process, GNSO Guidance Process and GNSO Expedited PDP are due today 
(Tuesday 16 December).

Best regards,

Marika

Proposed Agenda – Policy & Implementation Working Group Meeting – 17 December 
2014
1.     Roll Call / SOI
2.     Continue review of GNSO Input Process, GNSO Guidance Process, GNSO 
Expedited PDP based on input received prior to meeting (see last version 
attached)
3.     Confirm next steps & next meeting

________________________________

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.