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

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I would be in favour of keeping the Council voting threshold to 
terminate/suspend a GGP at a simple majority, and adding the language Marika is 
proposing below.

Having said that, I have to admit that I am finding this discussion very 
interesting. I believe Anne has made some very important points. If the GNSO 
fails to provide the Board with guidance using a GGP, the Board will most 
likely need to make a decision without it. However, I still don’t see how 
raising the Council voting threshold to terminate/suspend a GGP will assist in 
mitigating this risk. How would this increase the likelihood of GGP 
recommendations achieving the necessary consensus level to pass along guidance 
to the Board?

On the other hand, giving the Council the flexibility it needs to correct its 
course, and enable to the GNSO to come up with answers by other means (perhaps 
using a different process) may be more helpful.

Just some thoughts.

Thanks.

Amr

On May 5, 2015, at 10:00 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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>
> Date: Tuesday 5 May 2015 00:10
> To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" 
> <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx" 
> <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
> 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] 
> 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
>  
> <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: 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] 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
>  
> <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 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.
> <image001.gif>