[gnso-policyimpl-wg] Re: Agenda and documents for WG call on Wednesday 22 April
Hello Anne, Chuck and everyone, If the WG decides to propose that a motion that requires a Supermajority vote for passage be voted on first, then this means that any time there is a motion proposed for an EPDP (regardless of whether the other competing motion(s) is/are for a ³regular² PDP or GGP) then the motion to initiate the proposed EPDP will always come up first for voting. As Chuck noted, we should discuss this at the WG meeting tomorrow, and one thing that struck me that the WG may wish to consider is the possibility of ³gaming² I.e. whether having such a prescribed order would mean that a group could consider proposing an EPDP just to get it ³on the table² first (or not, as the case may be). It also will not solve the ³problem² if the competing motions are for initiating a GGP versus a ³regular² PDP, for which the voting thresholds are (currently) the same. Marika will correct me if I¹m mistaken, but I agree with Chuck that the GNSO Operating Procedures do not preclude discussion of all the proposed motions prior to voting; in fact, I assume that due process and proper order would permit both/all motions to be presented and discussed and if necessary, amended or withdrawn prior to a vote being called. This is the main reason why I¹d proposed giving the Council the flexibility and discretion to decide the order in which they would wish to approach voting on the motions being presented (assuming more than one remains ³in play² even after a full discussion). 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: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 21:41 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: Agenda and documents for WG call on Wednesday 22 April > Anne, > > Let¹s discuss your point on a motion requiring supermajority support in out > meeting tomorrow. I don¹t think that the GNSO operating procedures would > prevent discussing all the motions first before deciding. > > Chuck > > > From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 9:05 PM > To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Mary Wong'; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: Agenda and documents for WG call on Wednesday 22 April > > Chuck, > I think Mary¹s 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 > > 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 | 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] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne > Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 2:49 PM > To: 'Mary Wong'; 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 week¹s call without notice to the group. I did > listen to the mp3 on Saturday. A few comments from my perspective: > > 1. Regarding ³hierarchy² or ³priority of consideration of GNSO input > methods during the implementation phase², 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 Alan¹s concern regarding the timing it takes to work > through each of the three processes, I would have to agree with Greg¹s comment > that the most rapid process has been shown to be ³private deal on the side² > 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, > let¹s 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, ³You don¹t know what you are going to paint until you > start painting² (or something like that.) The time it takes for each process > may vary greatly depending on the issue involved. The notion of ³Pilot > Project² makes more sense to me in this regard than ³stress testing.² So here > we attempt to institute mechanisms which are entirely voluntary with the > Council and constitute ³tools² 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 > > > > > > > > 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 | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/> > > > > > From: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 > 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 ³hierarchy² question regarding > competing motions for initiating GNSO processes (cont¹d 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 > > > > > > > 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. > Attachment:
image001.gif Attachment:
smime.p7s
|
