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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Marika.
Anne - If you can find time to respond to this before our meeting on Wednesday, 
please do.  Do you think this is a reasonable compromise to address the IPC 
concerns?
Comments are of course welcome from all.
Chuck

From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 4:01 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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@01D0871B.CDD094D0]

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@01D0871B.CDD094D0]

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.