[gnso-policyimpl-wg] Re: PI Initial Report - updated draft for today's meeting

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck,

Anne made her comments to the version I circulated this morning which 
integrated yours as well as some staff comments received. However, I have 
noticed that in the version that Anne circulated your comments are no longer 
attributed, but they are still there.

Best regards,

Marika

From: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday 7 January 2015 15:22
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>>
Subject: RE: PI Initial Report - updated draft for today's meeting

Marika,

I don’t know which is easier, to integrate Anne’s edits and comments into mine 
or vice versa.  Whatever, is it possible for someone to do that before our call 
today?

BTW, I like Anne’s suggestions for the Executive summary.

Chuck

From: 
owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 8:34 AM
To: 'Marika Konings'; 
gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] RE: PI Initial Report - updated draft for today's 
meeting

Thank you Marika.  Certainly this report is quite comprehensive and I am sure 
we all applaud you and others on staff for pulling this together in such a 
timely fashion to keep us on target.

I made some proposed wording changes in the attached redline version of your 
last draft.  I also wanted to share some preliminary thoughts regarding points 
I believe should be made in the Executive Summary as follows:

“History shows that important issues may arise during the implementation 
process which are the subject of diverging opinions within the community and 
which may or may not involve policy issues.  After reviewing several past cases 
of such issues which were resolved on an ad hoc basis, the WG concluded that 
defining such issues as either “policy” or “implementation” was not as 
important as developing standardised mechanisms for addressing such issues 
smoothly and efficiently regardless of characterization.  This is especially 
true in situations where the issues that arise are time sensitive.  In light of 
ICANN’s Core Value 4 in support of informed participation in all policy and 
decision-making, the WG proposes three new standardised mechansims for GNSO 
consideration of such issues.”

I think it is very important that the WG stress its conclusion that the debate 
over  “is it policy or is it implementation” is a potentially endless and 
unproductive debate.  The focus must be on smooth and efficient resolution of 
issues regardless of characterization.

Unfortunately, I have been called into a meeting that occurs at exactly the 
same time as our WG call today and this cannot be avoided.  Please accept my 
apologies. I look forward to listening to the mp3 prior to next week’s call.

Thank you,
Anne

[cid:image001.gif@01D02A42.A9275640]

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, January 07, 2015 3:40 AM
To: gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] PI Initial Report - updated draft for today's 
meeting

Dear All,

To date, I’ve received comments from Chuck and some of my colleagues that I’ve 
integrated in the attached version. Please use this version if you have any 
further edits / comments. Note, that I’ve already fixed some of the issues 
identified as well as updated Annex F as I had used an outdated version.

To facilitate the WG’s review later today, I’ve taken the liberty to highlight 
those comments / edits in yellow that may benefit from further WG 
consideration. All other edits appear to be clarifications / corrections that 
probably do not warrant further discussion (if you think otherwise, please flag 
any other items that you think need WG consideration).

Best regards,

Marika

________________________________

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
Description: image001.gif