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

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi again,

To be clear, when I said “2 sets of criteria” in the below email, this was 
regarding the voting thresholds.

Thanks.

Amr

On Apr 22, 2015, at 1:20 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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>
>