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

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Alan,

I believe that you are correct, although there is nothing stopping the agenda 
(including the order of the agenda items) from being a discussion topic in 
itself (either on-list or at the beginning of a Council meeting). Typically, a 
GNSO council meeting will start with an opportunity to comment on the agenda or 
raise topics to be discussed under “Any Other Business”, right?

Thanks.

Amr

On Apr 22, 2015, at 4:57 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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
>>  
>> <efdfa06.jpg>
>> 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
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>   
>>  
>> <efdfa06.jpg>
>> 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. 
>>