December 2012 - Gnso-improvem-impl-sc

Please Review: Draft Survey for GNSO Working Groups
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 17, 2013

Jan. 17, 2013

Dear SCI members, Below is a link to a Draft Survey for GNSO Working Groups. This survey is based on the latest version of the survey that we discussed. It would be helpful if the SCI members could try out the survey and provide comments on how it can be improved. We can discuss the timing of the survey review at our meeting on Thursday, 06 December. Link to Draft Survey for GNSO Working Groups: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FFTCJPT Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

2 6

New task
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Jan. 2, 2013

Jan. 2, 2013

All, from today's council call the task attached was shifted to the SCI. Looking forward to meeting you later Wolf-Ulrich

6 10

MP3 recording of the SCI meeting - 20 December 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 20, 2012

Dec. 20, 2012

Dear All, Please find the MP3 rerecording and transcript of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Thursday, 20 December 2012 at 20:00UTC. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20121220-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#<http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#oct>dec (transcripts and recording are found on the calendar page) As requested on the call, at the bottom of the attendance list, you will find the list of members currently subscribed to the mailing list. Attendees: Ronald Andruff - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Primary - chair Wolf-Ulrich Knoben - ISPCP - Primary Angie Graves - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Alternate Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC Alternate Avri Doria - Non Commercial SG - Primary - vice chair James Bladel - Registrar Stakeholder Group - Alternate Jennifer Wolfe - NCA Alain Berranger - NPOC - Primary Apologies : Mary Wong -NCUC J. Scott Evans - IPC Primary ICANN Staff: Marika Konings Julie Hedlund Glen de Saint Géry ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Members subscribed to the mailing list Ron Andruff - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Primary Angie Graves - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Alternate J Scott Evans - IPC Primary Anne Aikman Scalese - IPC Alternate Tony Holmes - ISPCP - Alternate Wolf-Ulrich Knoben -- ISPCP - Primary Avri Doria - Non Commercial SG - Primary - vice chair Mary Wong - Non Commercial SG - Alternate Alain Berranger - NPOC primary Jennifer Wolfe - NCA primary Thomas Rickert -NCA alternate James Bladel - Registrar Stakeholder Group - Alternate Jennifer Standiford - Registrar SG Primary Ray Fassett RySG - Primary Jonathan Robinson - RySG Alternate Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Adobe Connect chat transcript: Marika Konings:Welcome to the SCI Meeting of 20 December 2012 Julie Hedlund 2:Here is the member list: Julie Hedlund 2:https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/4.+Members Bladel:Thank you. Marika Konings:Something the SCI may want to consider as well for future consensus call is whether a response is required from all SG/Cs or whether no response counts as support. avri:i was on the call. In fact I am in the At-LArge WG that hosted the wedbnar., thohg not a co-author of the R3 recomemndations. avri:i listened to it Wolf Knoben:look at the bylaws where the GNSO is defined as the policy development body in the gTLD area avri:Great set of complications marika, I think they should all be covered in the new recommendations are recommend by the IPC. Alain Berranger, NPOC:thanks Wolf... so ICANN community is there in the Multi-Stakeholder space/map solely to produce policy recommendations via GNSO? avri:it may need another comment cycle Wolf Knoben:There shall be a policy-development body known as the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which shall be responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains avri:i did it too. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Ulie, avri:We especially need for g-council emmebrs to read them. i would liek to have the g-council embers take a similar survey. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Julie, could you please send me a word version of the revised paragraph that went out for public comment with footnote? Anne Julie Hedlund 2:Yes Anne Julie Hedlund 2:I will do so as soon as this meeting ends Julie Hedlund 2:if not before Anne Aikman-Scalese:Thank you. Anne Bladel:I'm sorry, but I need to drop the call. Losing power. :( Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Actions from SCI Meeting 20 December
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 20, 2012

Dec. 20, 2012

Dear SCI members, Below are the actions I captured from our meeting today on 20 December 2012. Please let me know if you have any questions, comments, or changes. Please complete the doodle, to be sent via a separate message, to help us to choose a recurring day and time for the meetings in 2013. Best wishes for a wonderful holiday and happy new year! Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions: 1. Issues the SCI is reviewing: Action: Staff create a chart and timeline on the wiki. 2. SCI Meetings: Action: Staff send a doodle to select a recurring date and time. 3. SCI members: Action: Staff update the list of members. 4. Modifications to the Charter to include Chair/Vice Chair elections and terms: Action: Staff put on agenda for next call. 5. Whether the SCI should solicit work or take on work from the GNSO council. Action: Staff put on the agenda for next call. 6. Suspension of a PDP: Draft language for the PDP Manual on suspensions and terminations. Actions: 1) J. Scott and Anne provide draft revised language; 2) Liaison to the Council report that the SCI is looking into termination. 7. Working Group Survey: Action: SCI members and colleagues take the survey if you haven't done so 8. Re-submitting a motion and conflicts of interest. Action: Staff put on agenda for next call. 9. Liaison to the Council. Action: Staff put on agenda for the next call.

1 0

Draft Working Group Survey Results
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 19, 2012

Dec. 19, 2012

Dear SCI members, Attached are the survey results from the request for SCI members to take the survey. Five people took the survey. The following report summarizes the responses. This is on the agenda for discussion tomorrow so I wanted to give you the information so you could review it ahead of time. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
by Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu Dec. 19, 2012

Dec. 19, 2012

I support the concept of an interim report to be put out to the community by the GNSO Council upon its suspension of a PDP; however, I'd like to separate out our actual recommendation (which is to clarify what and when there is considered to be a suspension of a PDP) with our opinion as to either the GNSO Council's relationship with/reaction to Board-directed PDPs or as to appropriate action by the Council in voting for a suspension. I'd therefore suggest a slight modification to our Option 3 - take the language/mention of an interim report out of the sentence containing our recommendation, and either add a new sentence following that, or create an additional, related recommendation, stating that "The SCI recommends that, in cases of suspension of a Board-directed PDP, the GNSO Council issues an interim report stating the reasons for such suspension to the community." Or something along those lines. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong(a)law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >>> "Ron Andruff" 12/14/12 3:13 PM >>> Dear all, Recognizing that I am not yet installed asthe Chair of the SCI until our next meeting this coming Thursday (Dec. 20th),yet being responsible for that meeting, (forgive me Wolf-Ulrich) I have tworequests: (1) It would be very helpful if all SCImembers would look at where we are with the Suspending a PDP--ProposedRevised Footnote and add your thoughts. The most recent exchanges onthat thread are noted below. It appears that we have found a way forward, butthis needs to be confirmed by all members. (2) I would also ask everyone to take afew minutes to complete the Survey that Julie sent around again today with herrequest that we all fill it out and note our experience and thoughts aboutamendments. She has asked for this to be done by Wednesday, Dec. 19th,so please do take a few minutes if you can spare them during this busy lead upto Christmas so that we can have a productive discussion. Thank you all in advance for attending tothese two outstanding items. Kind regards, 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 Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, December 13, 201212:44 PM To: 'Ron Andruff';gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Subject: RE:[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Ron, I would certainly support that notionin the interest of accountability and transparency. Anne E.Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700 One South Church Avenue* Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman(a)LRLaw.com* www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing thise-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged andconfidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the originalmessage. From: RonAndruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 201210:39 AM To:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Subject: RE:[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Question for all re: an interim status report to the ICANN Board If I understand Annes line ofthinking, the concern is about how to deal specifically with Board requestedPDPs that are suspended. However, option 3 sounds like we arerecommending that the Board receive an interim report whether they haveinitiated the PDP or not. This is a significant change and would only addmore to the Boards already full plate, in my view. That said, in circumstance where asuspension has been called for, I do see the merit of requesting that Councilgenerate an interim report and post it to inform the entire communityof the suspension and reason(s) for which it was suspended. That would bequite logical in the larger scheme of things. Anne, please correct me if I am wrong. Kind regards, 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 Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, December 13, 201210:58 AM To: 'KnobenW(a)telekom.de'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Subject: RE:[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I would propose a third option: 3. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there isa temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is notconsidered a suspension. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700 One South Church Avenue* Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman(a)LRLaw.com* www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printingthis e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged andconfidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the originalmessage. From: KnobenW@telekom.de[mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 20128:49 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne;gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Subject: AW:[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, from the list I did not understand a clearobjection against sending the draft motion to the council with the option ofwithdrawing it if there can't be found SCI consensus. So I took thisresponsibility and did it to preserve this chance. I'd like to encourage all of us tocontinue working at a solution re the footnote. 2 suggestions are at the table: 1. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is atemporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decisionof the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones orschedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 1. Suspensionis a STATEDtime interval during which there is a temporary cessation of thePDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council, subject to ICANN Boardreview in those cases where the Board has requested GNSO input. A mere change inmilestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 3. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there isa temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is notconsidered a suspension. Please comment. I wonder what how to proceed if therewill be no consensus found at thew time being. On the one hand I've got theimpression that a majority would be satisfied with suggestion #1 but also opento find a solution which doesn't cause the need for another public commentperiod. In case of no consensus we could also -as we did with other items discussed at the SCI - report to the councilwhere we are, that there has been a public comment period successfullyfinished, but there are still concerns which would prevent the SCI fromconsensus. The council may then decide how to deal with the (publiclycommented) text. I would be thankful hearing yourassessment on and under which conditions consensus could still be achieved. Bestregards Wolf-Ulrich Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@lrlaw.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Dezember2012 03:13 An:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: RE:[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Ido not believe that this "negative response" mechanism is inaccordance with the full consensus process. I also believe I spoke against thisat the last reading. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: KnobenW@telekom.de[KnobenW@telekom.de] Received: Wednesday, 12 Dec 2012,5:06am To:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org] Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc]Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, per its charter, the SCI is expected totake decisions using a 'full consensus' process ("when no one in the groupspeaks against the recommendation in its last readings"). Obviously it would be ideal if allmembers support a certain position. It would also be ideal if we findconsensus today which is the deadline for motions before the next counciilmeeting. But in order to reduce time pressure I could imagine the option tosubmit the draft motion today, noting that there are some issues that arestill being discussed by the SCI which may result in withdrawal of the motionand agenda item if no agreement can be found. If there is no objectionI'll do so accordingly at the end of the day. Thanks for this valuable discussion andfor your understanding. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> To: Alain Berranger <alain.berranger(a)gmail.com>,"KnobenW(a)telekom.de" <KnobenW(a)telekom.de> Cc: "AAikman(a)lrlaw.com" <AAikman(a)lrlaw.com>, "avri(a)acm.org" <avri(a)acm.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org"<gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--ProposedRevised Footnote Alain, Oneconsideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change fromthe original footnote text. The previous suggestion * adding theword "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- wasdeemed by the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us toopen a Public Comment Forum on new language. As discussed during lastThursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented inthe public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that therevised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days. Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longerperiod, perhaps 30 days. Withbest regards, Julie JulieHedlund, Policy Director From:Alain Berranger <alain.berranger(a)gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <KnobenW(a)telekom.de> Cc: "AAikman(a)lrlaw.com" <AAikman(a)lrlaw.com>, "avri(a)acm.org" <avri(a)acm.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org"<gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--ProposedRevised Footnote Canwe simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chaircan clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, andpriority... Alain OnTue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, <KnobenW(a)telekom.de> wrote: We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, justbring it to the point. First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should beagreed. Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate theconcern? Or do others have? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org]Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending aPDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't thinkwe are unanimous. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP . Suite 700 One South Church Avenue. Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428. Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman(a)LRLaw.com . www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the originalmessage. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org]On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--ProposedRevised Footnote Hi, Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was stillconcerned. avri On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, <KnobenW(a)telekom.de><KnobenW(a)telekom.de> wrote: > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote(redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec councilmeeting. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri(a)acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example theVertical Integration PDP: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html) > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrlaw.com> wrote: > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Boardcalls >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that thenresults in >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I thinkthere >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" orfor an >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position whereit >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and hasnot >> answered our questions." This is particularlyunsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >> Anne >> >> >> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese >> Of Counsel >> Lewis and Roca LLP . Suite 700 >> One South Church Avenue. Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) >> 629-4428 . Fax (520)879-4725AAikman(a)LRLaw.com . >> www.LewisandRoca.com/AikmanP Please consider the environment before >> printing this e-mail. >> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information >> intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. >> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the >> agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are >> hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or >> copying of this communication is prohibited. If thiscommunication >> was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete >> the original message. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org]On Behalf Of Marika >> Konings >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >> To: KnobenW(a)telekom.de; avri(a)acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provideinformation >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion sothat it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW(a)telekom.de"<KnobenW(a)telekom.de> wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org]Im Auftrag von Avri >>> Doria >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Boardasked for >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council toinitiate the PDP. >>> Specifically: >>> >>> " >>> March 212 20120314-1 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on'thick' >>> Whois >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick'Whois >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109) >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> " >>> November 2012 20121017-2 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in allGTLDs. >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the >>> New gTLD Program. >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >>> >>> " >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >>> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report byinstructing >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the processoutlined the PDP Manual. >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope,timing, >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >>> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >>> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, theCouncil, >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate aPDP. >>> No vote is required for such action. >>> " >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the currentwhois PDP >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff(a)rnapartners.com] >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri@acm.org];gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org] >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role isto commit >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom upprocess into >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history ofthe Board's >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in anever-maturing ICANN >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform toICANN's basic >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org]On Behalf Of Avri >>>> Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-councilever >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, ormake one >>>> their preemptory decisions. >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP- >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issueat this >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue fromthe >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-councildecsions, even >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >>>> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, <KnobenW(a)telekom.de> <KnobenW(a)telekom.de> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anne and all, >>>>> >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule acouncil >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing anexpectation >>>> that the council should follow a related board request.I think >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debatefollowing the >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. >>>>> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnoteprovided by >>>> Julie? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org]Im Auftrag von >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW:Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that ifthe ICANN Board >>>> says, >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because weneed an >>>> answer >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that iswhat will happen? >>>>> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't workeffectively and >>>>> the >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), thenFadi's >>>> "oasis" >>>> announced in Dubaibecomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question willcome up >>>>> at >>>> the >>>> GNSO level. >>>>> >>>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of CounselLewis and Roca LLP >>>>> . Suite 700 One South Church Avenue . Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>>> Tel (520)629-4428 . Fax (520)879-4725 AAikman(a)LRLaw.com . >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing thise-mail. >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entitynamed >>>>> within >>>> the message. >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intendedrecipient, or >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intendedrecipient, you >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination,distribution >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. Ifthis >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us byreply >>>>> e-mail and delete the >>>> original message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW:Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this requirefurther public >>>> comment >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>>> >>>>> jse >>>>> >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains ©right - Yahoo! >>>> Inc. >>>> - 408.349.1385- jscottevans(a)yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrlaw.com>; >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org"<gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org> >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW:Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "untilfurther notice" to be >>>> deleted? >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during whichthere is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change inmilestones or >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered asuspension." >>>>> >>>>> From: , Anne <AAikman(a)LRLaw.com> >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org" >>>> <gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org>, >>>> Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW:Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and"until further notice"? >>>> If >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "untilfurther notice" would >>>> not apply. >>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund(a)icann.org] >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org] >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed >>>> Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>> clarification to >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, onSuspending a PDP. >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change inbold >>>> all >>>> caps: >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during whichthere is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. Amere change >>>> in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered asuspension." >>>>> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below sothat >>>>> the >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>>> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is >>>>> accepted >>>> by the >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>>> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December sothat if >>>>> the >>>> SCI >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of >>>> Wednesday, >>>> 12 >>>> December.** >>>>> >>>>> With best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP priorto the >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upona >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favourof >>>> termination orsuspension. >>>> The >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelesslydeadlocked and unable to >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either thestrong >>>> support or a consensus of its members despitesignificant time and >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events haveoccurred since the >>>> initiation >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longernecessary; >>>> or warranting a suspension; or >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despiteseveral calls for >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantlyimpaired >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations dueto lack >>>> of volunteer participation. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>>>> termination, >>>> the >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum firstprior >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (asdescribed above). >>>>> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during whichthere is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A merechange in >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered asuspension. >>>>> >>>>> For more information about Lewis and RocaLLP, please go to >>>> www.lewisandroca.com. >>>>> Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno(775)823-2900 >>>>> Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque(505)764-5400 >>>>> Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 >>>>> This message is intended only for the use of theindividual or >>>> entity to >>>> which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is notthe >>>> intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsiblefor >>>> delivering the message to the intended recipient, youare hereby >>>> notified that any dissemination, distribution or copyingof this >>>> message is strictly prohibited. If you have receivedthis >>>> communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying >>>> to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. >>>>> In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular230, we >>>>> advise >>>> you >>>> that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advicewas not >>>> intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used,by any >>>> taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that maybe imposed >>>> on the taxpayer. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > PDP.docx> -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member,Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence,Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer,Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NArepresentative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVISDE CONFIDENTIALITÉ Cecourriel est confidentiel et est à lusage exclusif du destinataireci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message sans en être ledestinataire, ou lemployé(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettreau destinataire, est par les présentes avisée quil lui est strictementinterdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire,en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut être joint ou si ce documentvous a été communiqué par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et détruire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votrecoopération. CONFIDENTIALITYMESSAGE Thise-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of theaddressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other thanthe addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding itto the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify orreproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addresseecannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notifyus immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you foryour cooperation.

8 15

FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 19, 2012

Dec. 19, 2012

Dear SCI members, As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a clarification to the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. Please review the revised following text with the change in bold all caps: "Suspension is a STATED 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." For reference, I have included the entire section below so that the footnote may be viewed in context. It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is accepted by the SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if the SCI decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of Wednesday, 12 December.** With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] 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 orsuspension. 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 issignificantly impaired and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack of volunteer participation. If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its termination, the Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). ________________________________ [1] Suspension is a STATED 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 furthernotice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension.

9 33

Agenda for SCI Meeting 20 December
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 18, 2012

Dec. 18, 2012

Dear SCI members, On behalf of the current Chair, Wolf-Ulrich, and in coordination with our incoming Chair and Vice Chair — Ron Andruff and Avri Doria, respectively — here is the agenda for the meeting at 2000 UTC on Thursday, 20 December. Please let us know if you have any questions. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Agenda, SCI Meeting 20 December 2012 1. Roll call (1 min) 2. Turnover to New Chair/Vice Chair (1 min) 3. Statement of Interests (2 min) 4. Approval of the agenda (1 min) 5. Review of SCI Charter: (See Charter at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/3.+Charter) (10 mins): -- Reporting and Attendance -- Annual reviews (wiki) -- Consensus 6. Suspension of a PDP (25 mins) 7. Status update on Working Group survey (15 mins) 8. AOB (5 mins)

1 0

Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Dec. 14, 2012

Dec. 14, 2012

All, per its charter, the SCI is expected to take decisions using a 'full consensus' process ("when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings"). Obviously it would be ideal if all members support a certain position. It would also be ideal if we find consensus today which is the deadline for motions before the next counciil meeting. But in order to reduce time pressure I could imagine the option to submit the draft motion today, noting that there are some issues that are still being discussed by the SCI which may result in withdrawal of the motion and agenda item if no agreement can be found. If there is no objection I'll do so accordingly at the end of the day. Thanks for this valuable discussion and for your understanding. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> To: Alain Berranger <alain.berranger(a)gmail.com<mailto:alain.berranger@gmail.com>>, "KnobenW(a)telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" <KnobenW(a)telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> Cc: "AAikman(a)lrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrlaw.com>" <AAikman(a)lrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrlaw.com>>, "avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>" <avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Alain, One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change from the original footnote text. The previous suggestion - adding the word "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public Comment Forum on new language. As discussed during last Thursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented in the public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that the revised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days. Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longer period, perhaps 30 days. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Alain Berranger <alain.berranger(a)gmail.com<mailto:alain.berranger@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <KnobenW(a)telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> Cc: "AAikman(a)lrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrlaw.com>" <AAikman(a)lrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrlaw.com>>, "avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>" <avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, and priority... Alain On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, <KnobenW(a)telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> wrote: We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, just bring it to the point. First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should be agreed. Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the concern? Or do others have? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't think we are unanimous. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP . Suite 700 One South Church Avenue . Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428<tel:%28520%29%20629-4428> . Fax (520) 879-4725<tel:%28520%29%20879-4725> AAikman(a)LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRLaw.com> . www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still concerned. avri On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, <KnobenW(a)telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> <KnobenW(a)telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> wrote: > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html) > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrlaw.com>> wrote: > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position where it >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not >> answered our questions." This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >> Anne >> >> >> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese >> Of Counsel >> Lewis and Roca LLP . Suite 700 >> One South Church Avenue . Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) >> 629-4428 . Fax (520) 879-4725<tel:%28520%29%20879-4725>AAikman(a)LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRLaw.com> . >> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman> P Please consider the environment before >> printing this e-mail. >> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information >> intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. >> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the >> agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are >> hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or >> copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication >> was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete >> the original message. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Marika >> Konings >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >> To: KnobenW(a)telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>; avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW(a)telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" <KnobenW(a)telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Avri >>> Doria >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >>> Specifically: >>> >>> " >>> March 212 20120314-1 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >>> Whois >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109<http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109>); >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> " >>> November 2012 20121017-2 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the >>> New gTLD Program. >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >>> >>> " >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >>> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >>> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >>> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >>> No vote is required for such action. >>> " >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com<http://www.nitrodesk.com>) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff(a)rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>] >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>] >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Avri >>>> Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one >>>> their preemptory decisions. >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >>>> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, <KnobenW(a)telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> <KnobenW(a)telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anne and all, >>>>> >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation >>>> that the council should follow a related board request. I think >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debate following the >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. >>>>> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>>> Julie? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>>> says, >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an >>>> answer >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >>>>> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and >>>>> the >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>>> "oasis" >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >>>>> at >>>> the >>>> GNSO level. >>>>> >>>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> <image001.gif>Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP >>>>> . Suite 700 One South Church Avenue . Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>>> Tel (520) 629-4428<tel:%28520%29%20629-4428> . Fax (520) 879-4725<tel:%28520%29%20879-4725> AAikman(a)LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRLaw.com> . >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named >>>>> within >>>> the message. >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply >>>>> e-mail and delete the >>>> original message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com<mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com>] >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>>> comment >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>>> >>>>> jse >>>>> >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>>> Inc. >>>> - 408.349.1385<tel:408.349.1385> - jscottevans(a)yahoo.com<mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrlaw.com>>; >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>> >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>>> deleted? >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED 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. A mere change in milestones or >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman(a)LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRLaw.com>> >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" >>>> <gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>>, >>>> Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>>> If >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would >>>> not apply. >>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com<http://www.nitrodesk.com>) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>] >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>] >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed >>>> Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>> clarification to >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold >>>> all >>>> caps: >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED 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." >>>>> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that >>>>> the >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>>> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is >>>>> accepted >>>> by the >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>>> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >>>>> the >>>> SCI >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of >>>> Wednesday, >>>> 12 >>>> December.** >>>>> >>>>> With best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] 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 orsuspension. >>>> 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 issignificantly impaired >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack >>>> of volunteer participation. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>>>> termination, >>>> the >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>>>> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED 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 furthernotice. A mere change in >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>>>> >>>>> For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to >>>> www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com>. >>>>> Phoenix (602)262-5311<tel:%28602%29262-5311> Reno (775)823-2900<tel:%28775%29823-2900> >>>>> Tucson (520)622-2090<tel:%28520%29622-2090> Albuquerque(505)764-5400<tel:%28505%29764-5400> >>>>> Las Vegas (702)949-8200<tel:%28702%29949-8200> Silicon Valley (650)391-1380<tel:%28650%29391-1380> >>>>> This message is intended only for the use of the individual or >>>> entity to >>>> which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the >>>> intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for >>>> delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby >>>> notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this >>>> message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this >>>> communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying >>>> to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. >>>>> In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we >>>>> advise >>>> you >>>> that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not >>>> intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any >>>> taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed >>>> on the taxpayer. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > <Excerpt of PDP Manual Modified to Address Suspension of a > PDP.docx><Motion to Adopt Revised PDP Manual to Include the Suspension of a PDP.docx> -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca<http://www.schulich.yorku.ca> Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org<http://www.gkpfoundation.org> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org<http://www.chasquinet.org> Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l'usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message sans en être le destinataire, ou l'employé(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les présentes avisée qu'il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut être joint ou si ce document vous a été communiqué par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et détruire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coopération. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation.

4 8

SCI chair election results
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 14, 2012

Dec. 14, 2012

Dear All, The voting period for the new SCI chair closed on Thursday, 13 December 2012 at 23:59 UTC. The results are: Eleven (11) votes for Ron Andruff Four (4) votes for Avri Doria According to the procedure set out, the candidate with a simple majority of the votes is elected chair. The other candidate is elected vice-chair. Fourteen (14) Ballots were received from the 15 SCI members eligible to vote and one vote was registered by simple email message. Anne Aikman-Scalese Ron Andruff Alain Berranger James Bladel Avri Doria J. Scott Evans Ray Fassett Angie Graves Tony Holmes Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Thomas Rickert Jonathan Robinson Jennifer Standiford Jennifer Wolfe Mary Wong Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen De : owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] De la part de KnobenW(a)telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de> Envoyé : jeudi 13 décembre 2012 21:48 À : gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Objet : [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI chair election All, today at 23:59 UTC the election period for the new SCI chair is ending. I hope all of you could take part in the election. I suggest to hand over officially at the beginning of the next SCI meeting on 20 December. The same day shall be a council meeting, and I'll inform the council about the change. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

6 6