RE: Reminder: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Deadline for review - 13 January - PI Draft Initial Report

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

Thanks Anne.  Please see a few responses below.

Chuck

From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 7:32 PM
To: 'Olévié Kouami'; Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Reminder: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Deadline for review - 13 January - 
PI Draft Initial Report

I think "Preamble" is a fine word to use in this context.  My further thoughts 
are as follows:


1.        The WG needs an Executive Summary to be reviewed in our January 14 
call. This report is due no later than January 19.  The Executive Summary very 
important and we need to see and discuss it.

2.       I think we should ask commenters whether they believe the Principles 
should be adopted by the GNSO and/or the Board.
[Chuck Gomes] I question whether commenters will have enough background to 
answer this question.  Also, it seems to me that the principles are critical to 
our recommendations. As a WG it is up to us to propose recommendations and ask 
commenters to respond.  We could ask a multiple choice question for each of the 
recommendations.  I think that would be okay.

3.       I agree with Chuck that policy is "developed" rather than "determined" 
by GNSO.  Would actually say "policy recommendations" are "developed" and that 
policy is made by the Board if you read the By-Laws carefully.

4.       I still do not understand the tautological definitions of "binding" 
and "non-binding force".  These have to somehow relate to the ICANN By-Laws or 
there is no true meaning to the terms in the context of recommendations and/or 
comments from GNSO.  Does "binding force" refer to recommendations that require 
a certain majority of the Board in order to overthrow?
[Chuck Gomes] I believe that 'binding' refers to the fact that registries and 
registrars are required to implement them although I confess that I am not 
looking at the document at the moment so I can't see the context.

5.       In the "macro" overview of our work, I think we need to ask for public 
comment as to whether commenters believe that the suggested new processes will 
actually result in streamlined standardized issue resolution.

I did not do a detailed review this time due to the time-consuming nature of 
remote participation in the Non-Contracted Parties House Intersessional meeting 
in D.C.  Looking forward to speaking with all of you tomorrow.

Anne

[cid:image001.gif@01D02F6E.8DBD0EF0]

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 Olévié Kouami
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 1:41 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Marika Konings; 
gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Reminder: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Deadline for review - 13 January - 
PI Draft Initial Report



________________________________

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.