[gnso-policyimpl-wg] RE: Agenda and documents for WG call on Wednesday 22 April

["Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck,
I think Mary’s solution makes sense but I think we would likely need to say 
that that any motion requiring Supermajority has to be addressed first.  I 
would also want to know whether competing motions can all be discussed first 
before votes are taken.  Is that possible under GNSO Operating Procedures?  It 
seems as though Council would need to have an open discussion on all the 
possible avenues to address an issue either (1) before motions are made or (2) 
before motions are voted on.
Thank you,
Anne

[cid:image001.gif@01D07C5D.BB6ED4F0]

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: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 5:56 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Mary Wong'; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Agenda and documents for WG call on Wednesday 22 April

Great feedback Anne.  Thanks.  Please see my responses below.

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: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 2:49 PM
To: 'Mary Wong'; 
gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] RE: Agenda and documents for WG call on Wednesday 
22 April

Thanks Mary, Chuck et al.

I am sorry I had to miss last week’s call without notice to the group.  I did 
listen to the mp3 on Saturday.  A few comments from my perspective:


1.       Regarding “hierarchy” or “priority of consideration of GNSO input 
methods during the implementation phase”, it does seem to me that any action 
requiring a Supermajority vote would have to  be considered first.  For 
example, it has been suggested by some commenters (including IPC) that the 
ICANN Board should be able to initiate a GGP unless a SuperMajority of the GNSO 
Council votes against doing so.  I think the underlying assumption behind this 
suggestion is that a GGP may take less time than an EPDP and that a 
SuperMajority vote against would signal either (1) this topic was already 
covered by the previous PDP and the Board should not ignore that recommendation 
or (2)  the GNSO Council believes the issue requires an EPDP or a brand new 
PDP.  I also think that if EPDP requires Supermajority and there is a motion on 
the table for EPDP, that has to be considered before any motion that does not 
require Supermajority.
[Chuck Gomes] Are you supportive of the solution that Mary proposed for this 
after our meeting last week?


2.       With respect to Alan’s concern regarding the timing it takes to work 
through each of the three processes, I would have to agree with Greg’s comment 
that the most rapid process has been shown to be “private deal on the side” and 
that we are all trying to avoid that.  I am mindful of the fact that our WG 
started in part due to a letter Jeff Neustar initiated that came from Council 
and advised the ICANN Board that if they intend to take new action or a new 
issue related to a matter as to which GNSO has previously provided policy 
recommendations, they should come back to the GSNO Council with that issue.  
(Is my recollection correct?  Was it IOC/RC or something else?)
[Chuck Gomes] I was involved in the IOC/RC but am not sure it was that one.  It 
certainly happened with new gTLDs.



3.       So I think we have to accept that there are aspects of these new 
processes that MIGHT take longer than side deals.  However, it is not true in 
my opinion that this can normally be cured by taking longer to address the 
issues in the original PDP because much of what we are talking about has to do 
with issues that arise during implementation that may have policy implications 
and the issues are not necessarily known at the time of the PDP.  They may 
arise due to late input (e.g. from the GAC advice) or late-breaking facts (e.g. 
name collision not fully understood until implementation).    As a group, we 
decided that it is fruitless to characterize these issues as either policy or 
implementation during the implementation phase.  Rather, we said, let’s develop 
mechanisms to deal with GNSO input when issues arise during the implementation 
phase.
[Chuck Gomes] Agreed.



4.       While I think it is helpful to look at how long previous processes 
took from an historical point of view, I tend to agree with Mary that it is not 
that helpful to project how long each of the new processes should take.  Was it 
Picasso who said, “You don’t know what you are going to paint until you start 
painting” (or something like that.)   The time it takes for each process may 
vary greatly depending on the issue involved.  The notion of “Pilot Project” 
makes more sense to me in this regard than “stress testing.”  So here we 
attempt to institute mechanisms which are entirely voluntary with the Council 
and constitute “tools” for their use.  The tools are being recommended in order 
to try to eliminate ad hoc side deals and standardize processes for GNSO 
Council input in the implementation phase when issues arise that may be of 
concern to the GNSO and/or the community generally.  If used, the tools will 
arguably increase trust and efficiency within the policy-making process.  If 
they do not accomplish these goals, they will be thrown out or die a slow death 
by neglect.
[Chuck Gomes] Well said.


Anne







[cid:image001.gif@01D07C5D.BB6ED4F0]

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] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 10:16 AM
To: gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Agenda and documents for WG call on Wednesday 22 
April

Dear WG members,

Here is the proposed agenda for our next call on Wednesday 22 April 2015:

  1.  Roll call / updates to SOI
  2.  Agree on approach for dealing with the “hierarchy” question regarding 
competing motions for initiating GNSO processes (cont’d from previous 
discussions)
  3.  Continue review of public comments in item 5.5/5.6 and onward from 5.25 
(see latest version of public comment review tool, attached)
  4.  Confirm next steps / next meeting

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<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>


________________________________

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.

________________________________

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.