Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Proposed agenda - Policy & Implementation WG Meeting
My understanding is that it is the second ‘treated like public comments’ - it is input that is provided to a request, like a public comment forum to which the GNSO Council may want to provide input on. Best regards, Marika From: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> Date: Wednesday 17 December 2014 21:06 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@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>>, "migraham@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:migraham@xxxxxxxxxxx>" <migraham@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:migraham@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, "gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx>" <gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx>> Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Proposed agenda - Policy & Implementation WG Meeting 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<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; jscottevans@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxxxx>; migraham@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:migraham@xxxxxxxxxxx>; gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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. Attachment:
image001.gif
|
