Ron I want to first thank you for your role and leadership in SCI [and shortly will ask for more] and to also now add Angie to our thanks. Many BC members are not aware of the critical importance of this 'group' and I will actually now that I think of it, ask Ron and Angie to think about a way to explain the group and their role. It is subtle; important, and structurally invisible -- which means: incredibly important. [So plan for a 20 minute slot in Toronto's schedule for one of the BC meetings]. :-) I also want to take this opportunity to thank Ron for initially taking on this role for us; and then voluntarily saying to the Chair: I'd like to add in a colleague/let's start to explan our BC understanding. Ron invited volunteers, and Angie, as a new member,jumped into the deep end of the ocean, so to speak. We sometimes forget to thank our colleagues who do this kind of hard work, and critical work, so I want to highlight your role: Ron and Angie. [And I am hoping that some of you who may have limited time, might consider if you can collaborate, or 'shadow' another colleague, so we keep expanding our participation but not overburden newcomers or those with very limited time.] Importance of SCI:It's not policy development but it affects the ability to develop informed and balanced policy: it is about various processes: it is a building block and essential: The SCI will potentially end up as a critical player in the debate about GNSO Review; GNSO Review as Adm priority/plus priority and GNSO Review/as precurser to restructuring. The BC's positions about whether restructuring is needed now are conveyed in the Chair's Letter to the Board Chair: "NOT NOW. Improve services to existing Constituencies/SGS and build. GNSO review can be an adm review, but totally separate from discussions about restructuring of GNSO groups or GNSO. " Sometimes groups that are seemingly about structure or process can be captured and consumed and create unintended consequences, by well meaning players. The BC is fortunate to have a seasoned leader in Ron, who is now joined by Angie, building on our contributions and participation and to quickly stepping up to all the complex challenges that consume discussions in a group like this. I know we don't thank you enough. Bene, please help me add Ron and Angie to our agenda for Toronto? But for this particular topic, I want to thank you for highlighting this; and urge others to agree, or disagree with me on this issue. What works best is when you in fact to question whether we are getting it right, on your behalf on issues like this. I know that Ron and Angie want your feedback. We are strongest when we debate and examine and understand. And then are supported by such articulate leaders as Ron and Angie. Marilyn Cade, BC Chair From: randruff@rnapartners.com To: marilynscade@hotmail.com; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For review - proposed language to address suspending a PDP Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:51:52 -0400 Marilyn and all, Prior to this new policy change, there was no rule regarding ‘suspension’, so it was left to the Council Chair to make a determination. Given no guidelines, suspensions fell under the Chair’s prerogative. This amendment sets rules for the Chair to utilize if/when a suspension is requested. In response to your question about "blocking" a suspension, the key aspect is this language: The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend* a PDP prior to the publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of termination or suspension. Suspensions can only occur IF it is for significant cause AND with a Supermajority Vote. That, in my view, provides the safeguards that the BC should be looking for. To date we have had, as far as I am aware, only one request for suspension. I am happy to go back to the SCI with a request that we ask staff to provide the SCI with a ‘Suspensions Report’ 12 months after GNSO Council approval of this amendment. A one year review of all SCI recommendations should be a standard operating procedure for that body. Thanks for that input, Marilyn. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 6:12 PM To: Ron Andruff ; Bc GNSO list Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For review - proposed language to address suspending a PDP We need advice. What are implications? Suspending is "okay" if we can block suspension is we disagree. I can't read materially. But do read as much as I can. Can you and Angie make a two sentence case why I shld support this? I am suspicious - just a bit- abt why this. But recognize "suspend" is not "cancel". Shld suspension have a 3, 6, 9, 12 month "revisit? Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com> Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:16:15 To: <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For review - proposed language to address suspending a PDP Dear Fellow BC Members, On behalf of Angie Graves and myself (BC SCI reps), I am forwarding (see below) the Standing Committee on Implementation's recommendation on suspension of a PDP that will be sent to the GNSO Council for approval once the SCI signs off. If any BC members have opinions, comments or questions on this matter, please bring them to the list as soon as possible. Hearing no comments, Angie and I will give BC approval to this amendment in the PDP Manual. Thank you. RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. ---------------- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 10:37 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For review - proposed language to address suspending a PDP Dear All, As discussed during the last meeting, please find below the proposed modifications (in bold) to the PDP Manual to address suspension of a PDP. As with any changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures of which the PDP Manual is part, once approved by the SCI, these would need to be put out for public comment for a minimum of 21 days followed by GNSO Council approval. If you have any further comments / edits, please share these with the mailing list. With best regards, Marika =============== Proposed Language to address suspending a PDP (modification in bold of section 15 of the PDP Manual) The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend* a PDP prior to the publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of termination or suspension. The following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a premature termination or suspension of a PDP: 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and resources being dedicated to the PDP; 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the initiation of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary, or warranting a suspension; or 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for participation, the work of the PDP Team is significantly impaired and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack of volunteer participation. * Suspension is a time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. [to be included as a footnote]