[gnso-policyimpl-wg] Re: For your review - updated public comment review tool
Taking into account the current requirements for termination in the context of
a PDP ('In the case of a proposed termination of a PDP prior to the issuance of
a Final Report or suspension of a PDP upon the recommendation of the PDP Team,
the GNSO liaison to the PDP Team shall promptly submit to the Council a written
Termination Summary or Suspension Summary specifying the reasons for the
recommended action to be taken and, if applicable, the points of view
represented in the PDP Team and the consensus status (as defined by the GNSO
Working Group Guidelines) at the time such action is recommended’), maybe my
original suggestion could be enhanced as follows: 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 the points
of view represented in the GGP Team and the consensus status, if applicable (as
defined by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines), and expected next steps, if any.
If the GGP was initiated in response to a request from the ICANN Board, the
GNSO Council will share this formal report with the ICANN Board for its
information’.
Anne, Chuck, does that address your comments / concerns?
Best regards,
Marika
From: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tuesday 5 May 2015 00:10
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>,
"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>>,
"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 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<mailto: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<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@01D08695.9A1179B0]
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@01D08695.9A1179B0]
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
|
