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

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I’m not sure if the order of competing motions to initiate an EPDP or a PDP are 
necessarily an issue. There are 2 sets of criteria to approve initiation of a 
PDP as well as 2 other sets defining what a supermajority affirmative vote is. 
Mathematically, I don’t believe they can conflict (although I may be mistaken), 
so regardless of the order of the agenda, I don’t see how one could trump the 
other.

The problem, as Mary pointed out, is more of an issue of a motion to initiate a 
GGP competing with a motion to initiate a PDP. In fact, the carefully laid out 
balance of the vote required to initiate a PDP versus a supermajority vote is 
why I believed the supermajority vote would be more appropriate for initiation 
of a GGP in the first place.

I also have a question regarding another one of the comments by NCSG. This is 
specific to the NCSG comment saying that a GGP should not impose any new 
obligations on registrants similar to contracted parties — The WG response is 
“noted”. What exactly does that mean?

Thanks.

Amr

On Apr 22, 2015, at 5:35 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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 “regular” 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 “gaming” I.e. whether 
> having such a prescribed order would mean that a group could consider 
> proposing an EPDP just to get it “on the table” first (or not, as the case 
> may be). It also will not solve the “problem” if the competing motions are 
> for initiating a GGP versus a “regular” PDP, for which the voting thresholds 
> are (currently) the same.
> 
> Marika will correct me if I’m 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 amended or withdrawn – prior to a vote being called.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 I’d 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 “in play” 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,
>>  
>> Let’s discuss your point on a motion requiring supermajority support in out 
>> meeting tomorrow.  I don’t 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 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
>>  
>> <image001.gif>
>> 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
>>  
>>  
>> 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 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
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> <image001.gif>
>> 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
>>  
>>  
>> 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:
>> 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: 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.
> <image001.gif>