RE: Note for the call today (Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] On Thresholds to Initiate GGP/EPDP)
I encourage everyone to reply to Mary's question before our next call: Does the approach she suggests make sense? If not, please explain why. This should be on our agenda next week. Chuck From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 6:08 PM To: Amr Elsadr Cc: gnso-policyimpl-wg Subject: Re: Note for the call today (Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] On Thresholds to Initiate GGP/EPDP) Hi Amr and everyone, I think that is right - on the call last week, WG members noted that the order of things should not depend on which motion was submitted first, or who prepares the agenda. It seems to me that the fundamental concept we need to capture here is that it is for the Council, as manager of the GNSO policy process, to consider the most appropriate course of action in such cases. I would venture to suggest that we actually consider phrasing it in such general terms as a general recommendation, with the accompanying suggestion that in determining the most appropriate course of action, the GNSO Council must take into account the following: (1) the scope of each process, as expressly delineated in the ICANN Bylaws and the relevant portions of the GNSO Operating Procedures (including the PDP and EPDP Manuals); (2) the information contained in the relevant form or scoping document requesting the initiation of each process; and (3) any other materials and information the Council deems relevant, such as the original Board, SO or AC request to the GNSO (if applicable). You're right that the Council will have to vote on a motion that is properly submitted to it, unless the proposer withdraws it (which one cannot force a person to do). As I recall the last (perhaps only?) time this occurred was in November-December 2011, when two competing motions relating to a proposed review of the UDRP were brought forward. I believe what happened is that the Council voted on the first one that was submitted, on the understanding that if it failed then the Council would go on to vote on the second one that had been presented. In the situation being considered by our WG, the chronological disposition of the matter wouldn't work, of course, but we can be specific in our above-stated recommendation, and add the notes we now have in our Review Tool to the effect that the Council is not to base its determination of the most appropriate course of action by voting on each motion based on the chronological date of its submission. In other words, the Council's consideration of the three factors I outlined above would lead them to also decide the order in which to vote (with the least/less likely process option being voted on first, and if/when defeated, followed by the next most likely). Does this make sense? Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 06:36 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: gnso-policyimpl-wg <gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: Note for the call today (Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] On Thresholds to Initiate GGP/EPDP) 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: <mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx From: <Gomes>, Chuck < <mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 08:14 To: Marika Konings < <mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, Amr Elsadr < <mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>, gnso-policyimpl-wg < <mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> 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: <mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx [ <mailto: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 < <mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thursday 9 April 2015 12:57 To: " <mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx" < <mailto: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 Attachment:
smime.p7s
|