<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[gnso-policyimpl-wg] RE: For review - Updated draft Final Report - Deadline for flagging issues for further consideration - Wednesday 20 May
- To: "'Michael Graham (ELCA)'" <migraham@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Marika Konings'" <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] RE: For review - Updated draft Final Report - Deadline for flagging issues for further consideration - Wednesday 20 May
- From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 20:30:39 +0000
Michael,
I think you and Chuck make good points about the type of issue involved. In
that regard, it would be helpful - as a check on our reasoning as a group – to
revisit briefly the items we studied at the beginning of our work which were
addressed on a “ad hoc” basis.
Perhaps staff could take a shot at identifying which of these new processes
would be applicable to each of those issues (instead of the ad hoc procedure
that was actually used).
Since the “ad hoc in the dark solution” is what we are trying to cure, it would
be good to know how we anticipate that the processes we have developed could be
used in those situations – for example, Specification 13 – which new process?
Strawman Solution – which new process? It would be good to know this before we
release the Final Report – especially because Chuck might have to answer a
question or two on these points when he gives his report to Council.
Anne
[cid:image001.gif@01D09237.23B55F90]
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: Michael Graham (ELCA) [mailto:migraham@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 1:17 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Marika Konings';
gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: For review - Updated draft Final Report - Deadline for flagging
issues for further consideration - Wednesday 20 May
I agree with Chuck’s comments – even if the possible length of time to
completion is the same, there are differences in what would be appropriate to
each.
Michael R. Graham
Senior Corporate Counsel, Intellectual Property
Expedia Legal & Corporate Affairs
T +1 425.679.4330 | F +1 425.679.7251
M +1 425.241.1459
Expedia, Inc.
333 108th Avenue NE | Bellevue | WA 98004
MiGraham@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:MiGraham@xxxxxxxxxxx>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic message may contain private,
confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended
recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this message by others is
strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please (i) contact
the sender immediately; and (ii) permanently delete the original and any copies
of the message including file attachments. Thank you for your cooperation.
From:
owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 12:32 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Marika Konings';
gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] RE: For review - Updated draft Final Report -
Deadline for flagging issues for further consideration - Wednesday 20 May
Please see my comments below Anne.
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: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 1:25 PM
To: 'Marika Konings';
gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] RE: For review - Updated draft Final Report -
Deadline for flagging issues for further consideration - Wednesday 20 May
Thanks Marika. I am still a bit concerned that we will get a question as to
why anyone would ever initiate a GGP if it takes just as long as an EPDP.
People might have a tendency to say - why do a GGP when you may determine in
that process that Consensus Policy is involved and if it will take just as
long? Why not just start with an EPDP and eliminate the complication of having
two different procedures to initiate?
[Chuck Gomes] It is important to understand the following: 1) EPDP’s can only
be used in very restricted circumstances so if the criteria are not met a full
PDP would have to be used; 2) not all issues are appropriate for PDPs so in
those cases a GGP might be the appropriate vehicle.
I am asking this because I think it is a question that could reasonably be
asked by a Council Member when we make our Final Report. I do not think that
“Yes, but it MIGHT be shorter” is a good answer to that question.
[Chuck Gomes] It is not just about how long it takes. For sure, if a topic is
eligible for policy work and a consensus policy is needed for enforcement, then
a PDP or EPDP could be considered and should be instead of a GGP. If not, then
it might not matter which process was used.
I wish I had a suggestion for shortening the GGP process – or a mechanism for
the GGP Team to determine within a fixed shorter period of time – e.g. 60 days,
whether an EPDP is necessary.[Chuck Gomes] In most cases a topic will probably
not fit the conditions for an EPDP.
Anne
[cid:image001.gif@01D09237.23B55F90]
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: Monday, May 18, 2015 6:26 AM
To: gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] For review - Updated draft Final Report -
Deadline for flagging issues for further consideration - Wednesday 20 May
Dear All,
Please find attached the latest version of the draft Policy & Implementation
Final Report. This version includes the changes made during last week’s PI
meeting as well as proposed language to reflect that the GGP and IRT should not
be used to re-open previously dealt with policy issues (note, I’ve marked these
changes with a comment). You’ll also find included a new annex H with the
estimated timelines. Staff comments that were addressed during the last meeting
have been removed, but please note that there are a still a couple of staff
comments in Annex I and K that have not been discussed yet.
As noted before, please flag any other items that require further discussion by
the WG prior to the WG meeting on Wednesday 20 May.
Best regards,
Marika
From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday 13 May 2015 22:47
To: "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>"
<gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Deadline for flagging issues for further
consideration - Wednesday 20 May
Dear All,
Following today’s meeting, please note that the deadline for flagging any other
items that need further consideration by the WG in relation to the draft Final
Report is next Wednesday 20 May prior to the PI WG meeting. For your
convenience, you’ll find the latest draft attached. Note that an updated
version incorporating the issues discussed during today’s meeting will be
circulated early next week.
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.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|