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

[J. Scott Evans <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

 Ann

Good questions.  Thoughts from others?

Sent from myMail for iOS
>
>Wednesday, December 17, 2014, 11:57 AM -0800 from Aikman-Scalese, Anne  
><AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>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?
> 
>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 |  www.LRRLaw.com
> 
> 
> 
>From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
>[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
>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 >
>Date:  Tuesday 16 December 2014 17:37
>To:  " gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx " < 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.