[gnso-policyimpl-wg] RE: For review - Updated draft Final Report - Deadline for flagging issues for further consideration - Wednesday 20 May

["Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Marika.  I think your chart of "scenario planning" is extremely helpful. 
 Good to know you were already thinking this way and I should not be at all 
surprised.

Unfortunately, I have to participate in another call today at the same time so 
I will leave it to the other members to discuss the final draft as well as 
their views on the  various scenarios.  I will listen to the mp3 later.

Given Greg and Michael's participation, I don't think anyone needs to wait on 
me to finalize the report at this time.
Thanks to everyone for all your hard work,
Anne

[cid:image001.gif@01D092E3.6C901DC0]

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: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 12:56 AM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Michael Graham (ELCA)'; Gomes, Chuck; 
gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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@01D092E3.6C901DC0]

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@01D092E3.6C901DC0]

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@01D092E3.6C901DC0]

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.

________________________________

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.