[gnso-policyimpl-wg] Re: For your review - updated public comment review tool
Anne, Chuck, all, The Initial Report currently requires that in case of termination of a GGP 'The GNSO Council will prepare a formal report on the proposed termination or suspension of a GGP outlining the reasons for the proposed action, current status of the GGP and expected next steps, if any’. The WG could consider adding something along the following lines: ‘in case the GGP was initiated in response to a request from the Board, the GNSO Council will share this formal report with the ICANN Board for its information’, if that addresses Anne’s concern? Best regards, Marika From: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> Date: Monday 4 May 2015 02:27 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>, "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>" <gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>> Subject: RE: For your review - updated public comment review tool Thanks Anne, What if it looks like it is impossible to reconcile differences? It might be very possible to list majority opinions (if there are any) and minority opinions without continuing the GGP. Chuck From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2015 3:32 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Marika Konings'; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: For your review - updated public comment review tool In the most common case, the ICANN Board needs an answer in order to reconcile differing advice. Without any advice, not even a listing of majority and minority opinions, the Board proceeds without GNSO input. Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D085DF.9FD9D9C0] 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<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 6:56 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Marika Konings'; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: For your review - updated public comment review tool Thanks Anne for providing this clarification. I have a follow-up question for you: What value is there is continuing a GGP if at least a simple majority of the Council doesn’t believe that it will be productive? Chuck From:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> [mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 9:15 PM To: 'Marika Konings'; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] RE: For your review - updated public comment review tool Thanks Marika. The rationale behind the IPC response to Q 12.5 is that the GGP is likely to be used most often when the ICANN Board requests input in relation to an issue that arises during implementation, whether as a result of new facts learned, or as a result of new GAC or other advice. For example, if ALAC asks the Board to halt launch of all gTLDs that require safeguards, the Board might want to initiate a GGP and if GNSO Council does not vote this down by a supermajority, the GGP would proceed. Given that the Board is seeking an answer and seeking to reconcile differences of opinion in the community, the question should require the same Supermajority to terminate as a PDP. Terminating via simple majority could be a method of stonewalling and getting the result one was not able to achieve when the vote was taken on the Board-initiated GGP. (In other words, why would it only take a simple majority to terminate a GGP when it takes a supermajority to stop a GGP from being commenced if initiated by the ICANN Board?) Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D085DF.9FD9D9C0] 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<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> [mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 1:56 PM To: gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] For your review - updated public comment review tool Dear All, Please find attached for your review the updated public comment review tool that should reflect today’s discussion. If you have any comments or edits please share those with the list. Anne and Carlos, please note that there are a couple of specific items that the WG is looking for your input on (Anne, see comment Q12.5, Carlos see comments Q14.3 and G.1). Your feedback would be appreciated. Note that everyone is encouraged to share any and all comments, questions or additional issues that require further conversation by the WG by Monday 4 May at 23:59 UTC at the latest. Based on the input provided, the Chairs will decide on Tuesday whether or not a WG meeting is needed next Wednesday as staff will require some additional time before a next draft of the report is produced (target date 13 May). Best regards, Marika ________________________________ 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. Attachment:
image001.gif
|
