[gnso-policyimpl-wg] Re: For review - Updated draft Final Report - Deadline for flagging issues for further consideration - Wednesday 20 May
Anne, all, I actually had already started doing similar in the form of scenario planning (see attached). Of course, it would be difficult to predict how the actual outcome would have looked, but it hopefully does give an idea how the new processes could have been applied for some of the issues that were previously dealt with through ad-hoc processes. If I may add some further comments to this conversation, from my perspective, the GGP was never about the ability to provide a quick response, but more about finding a mechanism through which GNSO consensus could be demonstrated by using robust multi-stakeholder processes which in turn would put certain requirements on the Board to consider the GNSO consensus advice. As others have pointed out as well, multi-stakeholderism is not a sprint but a marathon. Of course, none of these new processes would prevent the Council from still using an ad-hoc process that may result in a quicker response, but similar to the current situation, these would not have any binding effect on the Board. As such, it may be important for the WG/Council to communicate to the Board as well as the broader community what some of the expected timelines associated with these processes are so that expectations can be managed as well as realistic deadlines set when requests are put forward to the GNSO Council. Also, I think it is important to emphasise again that the timelines in the annex are estimates – there are various factors that affect the speed by which a process as well as consensus develop. As such, it may be worth for the WG to consider recommend at what point a review should be carried out of these new processes to assess real timelines and determine whether the new processes are performing as expected, or whether possible adjustments need to be considered. Best regards, Marika From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>> Date: Tuesday 19 May 2015 23:43 To: "'Michael Graham (ELCA)'" <migraham@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:migraham@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 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 review - Updated draft Final Report - Deadline for flagging issues for further consideration - Wednesday 20 May That’s why I thought staff might be able to help. [cid:image001.gif@01D09242.346F2360] 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 2:29 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Gomes, Chuck; 'Marika Konings'; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: For review - Updated draft Final Report - Deadline for flagging issues for further consideration - Wednesday 20 May Not a bad idea – though it would be a projection of what process(es) MIGHT have been used if available and why. Unfortunately, I do not have time to review this before Wednesday’s call. 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: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 1:31 PM To: Michael Graham (ELCA); Gomes, Chuck; 'Marika Konings'; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: For review - Updated draft Final Report - Deadline for flagging issues for further consideration - Wednesday 20 May 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@01D09242.346F2360] 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<mailto: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@01D09242.346F2360] 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. ________________________________ 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 Attachment:
Scenario planning new GNSO Processes - 20 May 2015.docx
|
