Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] RE: For your review - updated public comment review tool

[Olévié Kouami <olivierkouami@xxxxxxxxx>]

+1 @Chuck.


2015-05-04 22:10 GMT+00:00 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>  Thanks Marika.  It seems to me that even more information could be
> provided to the Board in such circumstances if that addressed the IPC
> concern.  For example, we could include minority statements from groups or
> individuals who opposed terminating the GGP and why.
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Monday, May 04, 2015 3:37 AM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* 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>
> *Date: *Monday 4 May 2015 02:27
> *To: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>, Marika Konings <
> marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <
> 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
> <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>]
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 03, 2015 3:32 PM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck; 'Marika Konings'; 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
>
>
>
>   *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
>
> *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *
>
> *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
>
> *(T) 520.629.4428 <520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <520.879.4725>*
>
> *AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>** | www.LRRLaw.com
> <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]
> *Sent:* Friday, May 01, 2015 6:56 AM
> *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Marika Konings'; 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
> <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
> *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
>
>
>
>   *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
>
> *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *
>
> *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
>
> *(T) 520.629.4428 <520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <520.879.4725>*
>
> *AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>** | www.LRRLaw.com
> <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:*owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx [
> mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> <owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>] *On Behalf Of *Marika Konings
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 29, 2015 1:56 PM
> *To:* 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.
>



-- 
Olévié Ayaovi Agbenyo KOUAMI
Responsable du Projet CERGI Education
Directeur-Adjoint de KT Technologies Informatiques sarl
SG de ESTETIC  - Association Togolaise des professionnels des TIC (
http://www.estetic.tg)
ICANN-NPOC Communications Committee Chair (http://www.icann.org/ et
http://www.npoc.org/)
Membre du FOSSFA (www.fossfa.net) et Membre de de Internet Society (
www.isoc.org)
BP : 851 - Tél.: (228) 90 98 86 50 / (228) 98 43 27 72
Skype : olevie1 FB : @olivier.kouami.3 Twitter : #oleviek Lomé - Togo