Re: Note for the call today (Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] On Thresholds to Initiate GGP/EPDP)

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Thanks for this, Mary. I do have one question, and the answer may be helpful. 
When we say that the GNSO Council would need to resolve which process before 
voting on two conflicting motions (each suggesting a competing process), is 
that assuming that two motions have been submitted, but the council is not 
required to vote on them in any particular order? I ask this, because whatever 
process the council deems to be the more appropriate, a motion that has been 
submitted needs to be voted on. It can’t be withdrawn unless the councillor 
submitting the motion (and possibly the seconder) decides to do so.

Thanks again.

Amr

On Apr 15, 2015, at 8:54 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hello everyone, 
> 
> In preparation for our call in just a few minutes, I’ve been asked to 
> recirculate the latest email discussion on the question raised by Amr and the 
> NCSG, regarding the “trumping” of a PDP by either a GGP or an EPDP, based on 
> the fact that the suggested thresholds for initiating each is relatively low. 
> On the WG call last week, the members present agreed that in situations where 
> there may be “competing” motions or proposals to initiate parallel processes, 
> the GNSO Council would need to determine the best and most appropriate 
> course. As such, we may wish to begin the call with a brief discussion as to 
> whether the proposed approach from last week is approved, following which 
> staff can prepare some language to share with the WG for your review after 
> the call.
> 
> The “action item” Marika had inserted into the review tool for this issue was 
> as follows:
> "Clarify that parallel efforts on similar / identical topics should be 
> avoided – if there are multiple motions on the same topic for different 
> processes, the Council as the manager of the process would first need to 
> resolve which process to use before voting on the motions. Leadership of GNSO 
> Council is encouraged to manage to use of these processes to minimize 
> potential conflicts as outlined in this comment” (from Column 5.4 of the 
> Review Tool)    
> 
> I hope this helps with us making good progress on the call today.
> 
> Thanks and cheers,
> Mary
> 
> Mary Wong
> Senior Policy Director
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 08:14
> To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, Amr Elsadr 
> <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>, gnso-policyimpl-wg <gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] On Thresholds to Initiate GGP/EPDP
> 
>> I would be surprised if there is any automatic hierarchy but it would be 
>> fine to check in my opinion.
>>  
>> Chuck
>>  
>> From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
>> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 7:37 AM
>> To: Amr Elsadr; gnso-policyimpl-wg
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] On Thresholds to Initiate GGP/EPDP
>>  
>> Hi Amr,
>>  
>> With regards to Anne’s comments, if I understood correctly, she noted that 
>> the outcome of a GGP could also be a recommendation to commence an EPDP or 
>> PDP on a certain topic if it would become obvious during the course of the 
>> GGP that consensus policy is required to address the topic. I confirmed that 
>> this is also listed in the Initial Report as one of the possible outcomes of 
>> a GGP (‘j. Recommendations on future guidance or policy development process 
>> activities’). 
>>  
>> In relation to hierarchy of process, I am happy to take this question back 
>> to my legal colleagues if deemed helpful to see whether there is an 
>> automatic hierarchy (e.g. Policy development trumps guidance development) or 
>> whether that would need to be specified by the WG in the bylaws / GNSO 
>> Operating Procedures. 
>>  
>> Best regards,
>>  
>> Marika
>>  
>> From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Thursday 9 April 2015 12:57
>> To: "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] On Thresholds to Initiate GGP/EPDP
>>  
>> Hi,
>>  
>> I just listened to the recording of the portion of the call that I had 
>> trouble following last night, and would like to reflect on some of it.
>>  
>> I think some very significant concerns were raised by pretty much everyone 
>> who spoke to the notion of raising the voting thresholds to initiate a GGP 
>> or an EPDP. In voicing the concerns raised by myself and the NCSG, the 
>> intent was certainly not to allow procedure to block substance, or even 
>> block the more effective means to hold a discussion on any given policy 
>> issue.
>>  
>> If there are suggestions on how to avoid GGPs/EPDPs trumping PDPs ONLY when 
>> it is inappropriate for them to do so besides raising the voting thresholds 
>> to initiate them, I would be more than happy to explore those possibilities.
>>  
>> There were some suggestions I found to be interesting including one by 
>> Marika (a hierarchy of processes) and another by Alan (a sort of standard 
>> motion). I would like to also stress that in raising these concerns, 
>> avoiding potential gaming of the process is just as important as ensuring 
>> that the processes we are suggesting don’t trump PDPs when a PDPs are 
>> necessary.
>>  
>> I also recall Anne making a suggestion that I really appreciated at the 
>> time, but I missed those in my notes, and the recording seems to have ended 
>> before she made it. Would really appreciate a refresher on that, if possible.
>>  
>> Thanks again to all.
>>  
>> Amr