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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

I might be mistaken, but I do not believe that 
there is any rule dictating the order in which 
motions are addressed. I think that they are 
typically addressed based on the order of the 
agenda, and that is effectively an arbitrary decision of the Chair.
Alan

At 21/04/2015 09:05 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
> 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
>
> []
>
> 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
> <mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx | 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: 
> <mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>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'; 
> <mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>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
>
>
>
>
>
> []
>
> 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
> <mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx | www.LRRLaw.com
>
>
>
> From: 
> <mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>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: <mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>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:
>    * Roll call / updates to SOI
>    * Agree on approach for dealing with the 
> “hierarchy” question regarding competing 
> motions for initiating GNSO processes (cont’d from previous discussions)
>    * 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)
>    * 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: <mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>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.