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

[Olévié Kouami <olivierkouami@xxxxxxxxx>]

+1 to be followed up today ...
Cheers !
-Olévié from Lomé / Togo-

NB : I'm back to my home & office..

2015-04-22 2:57 GMT+00:00 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 Maryâ EURO (tm)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
>
> [image: []]
>
>
>
>
>
> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South
> Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428
> <520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <520.879.4725> AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx
> <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/> *
>
>
> *From:* Gomes, Chuck [ mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx <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
> <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 weekâ EURO (tm)s call without notice to the 
> group.
> I did listen to the mp3 on Saturday.  A few comments from my perspective:
>
> 1.       Regarding â EURO oehierarchyâ EURO or â EURO oepriority of 
> consideration of GNSO
> input methods during the implementation phaseâ EURO , 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 Alanâ EURO (tm)s concern regarding the timing it 
> takes to
> work through each of the three processes, I would have to agree with
> Gregâ EURO (tm)s comment that the most rapid process has been shown to be
> â EURO oeprivate deal on the sideâ EURO 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, letâ EURO (tm)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, â EURO oeYou donâ EURO (tm)t know what 
> you are
> going to paint until you start paintingâ EURO (or something like that.)   The
> time it takes for each process may vary greatly depending on the issue
> involved.  The notion of â EURO oePilot Projectâ EURO makes more sense to me 
> in this
> regard than â EURO oestress testing.â EURO   So here we attempt to institute
> mechanisms which are entirely voluntary with the Council and constitute
> â EURO oetoolsâ EURO 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
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: []]
>
>
>
>
>
> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South
> Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428
> <520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <520.879.4725> AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx
> <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/> *
>
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx [
> mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> <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 â EURO oehierarchyâ EURO question
>    regarding competing motions for initiating GNSO processes (contâ EURO 
> (tm)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
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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.
>
>


-- 
Olévié Ayaovi Agbenyo KOUAMI
Responsable du Projet CERGI Education
Directeur-Adjoint de KT Technologies Informatiques sarl
SG de ESTETIC  - Association Togolaise des professionnels des TIC (
http://www.estetic.tg)
ICANN-NPOC Communications Committee Chair (http://www.icann.org/ et
http://www.npoc.org/)
Membre du FOSSFA (www.fossfa.net) et Membre de de Internet Society (
www.isoc.org)
BP : 851 - Tél.: (228) 90 98 86 50 / (228) 98 43 27 72
Skype : olevie1 FB : @olivier.kouami.3 Twitter : #oleviek Lomé - Togo