Re: Note for the call today (Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] On Thresholds to Initiate GGP/EPDP)

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Mary,

Apologies for getting back to you so late. Yes…, I think this all makes a lot 
of sense.

Thank you very much.

Amr

On Apr 17, 2015, at 12:08 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Date: Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 08:14
>>> To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, Amr Elsadr 
>>> <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>, gnso-policyimpl-wg <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: 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 <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Date: Thursday 9 April 2015 12:57
>>>> To: "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
>>