January 2013 - 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

RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task
by Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu Jan. 10, 2013

Jan. 10, 2013

Thanks, Jonathan and Jeff. As I won't be on the SCI call this week, my view, FWIW, is that a motion that is properly introduced, seconded and voted on should NOT be re-introduced (whether in its original form or tweaked) in the absence of clear evidence indicating fraud, duress or other similar circumstance surrounding the original introduction/seconding/vote in relation to the motion. In this regard, Councilors' ignorance of the rules (e.g. effect of an abstention), and lack of instruction/direction from a Councilor's particular constituency/SG, should NOT count as the type of circumstance that ought to permit a reintroduction or re-vote on what in substance is the same motion. 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 >>> "Jonathan Robinson" 01/10/13 1:12 AM >>> All, My understanding of the role of the SCI is to determine how improvements may be made for the future. When the motion was re-submitted to the December meeting, I do not believe that there was any procedure to guide the Council on the re-introduction of a motion that had recently been voted on. This specific issue has highlighted that we may need something to guide us on this in future. I do not believe that the SCI*s hands are tied at all. We have one useful example which raised concerns and now need to look at as general solution as possible for the future in order to cover both the example that raised the concern and other cases which may occur in future. Thanks, Jonathan From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu Sent: 09 January 2013 16:58 To: avri(a)acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Cc: jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com; Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in this specific instance: - the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on. - just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors were not aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they should be as it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a re-introduction of something that was properly introduced and voted on. - In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had given instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did not, the fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO rules, and if a constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the time to discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a motion (again, one properly introduced, seconded and voted on). - In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and referred the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion (without necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI before re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands are somewhat tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through - the mind boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and vote was improper or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive context within which ICANN is operating. 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 >>> Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> 01/09/13 2:01 PM >>> Another thought experiment. There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG Policy Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, some voters got confused and voted against. Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote? Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to just reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and perhaps even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote? A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency beleive that its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be able to have a vote rescheduled at the next meeting? avri On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote: > > Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can be reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on reconsideration in the ByLaws. > > One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that one of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case it was the Chair who had been on the losing side. > > We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done. > > avri > > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote: > >> I tend to agree, >> >> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrlaw.com>; >> To: 'Avri Doria' <avri(a)acm.org>; Jeff Neuman <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us>; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org <gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org>; >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com>; >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM >> >> >> Hi all, >> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" type inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going to discuss tomorrow. > > the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated. > >> >> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can provide prior to our call. > > It is all in the g-counci Procedures. > And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions already made. > > >> >> Thank you >> 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 original message. >> >> -----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: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM >> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I guess I do not support that. >> >> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should have past. >> >> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. >> >> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. >> >> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an NCUC based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go her way. >> >> avri >> >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >> >>> >>> Avri, >>> >>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did not happen. >>> >>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>> >>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@ella.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time >>> To: Neuman, Jeff >>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org; Jonathan Robinson >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that is not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion has passed or not. >>> >>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the reality of the situation. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on consensus. >>>> >>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a second measurement of consensus is not an issue. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>>> >>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@ella.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org >>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: >>>> >>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two remedies were possible. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and accountability. >>>> >>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------- >> For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, 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 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 >> >

7 9

MP3 recording of the SCI meeting - 9 January 2013
by Glen de Saint Géry Jan. 10, 2013

Jan. 10, 2013

Dear All, The next meeting of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting will be held on Wednesday, 23 January 2013 at 21:00 UTC. Please note Wednesday at 21:00 UTC is the new time for regular meetings every two weeks! Please find the MP3 rerecording of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Wednesday, 9 January 2013 at 21:00UTC. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20130109-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#<http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#oct>jan (transcripts and recording are found on the calendar page) 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 Primary J. Scott Evans - IPC - Alternate Avri Doria - Non Commercial SG - Primary - vice chair Alain Berranger - NPOC - Primary Thomas Rickert - NCA - Alternate Jeff Neuman - RYSG - alternate Apologies : Mary Wong -NCUC - Alternate Jen Wolfe - NCA - Primary ICANN Staff: 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 - Alternate Anne Aikman Scalese - IPC - Primary 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 Jeff Neuman - RySG - Alternate Jonathan Robinson - GNSO Chair - Observer Mason Cole - GNSO Vice Chair - Observer Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Adobe Connect chat transcript: Julie Hedlund:################## Julie Hedlund:This is the SCI Meeting for 09 January 2013 Ron A:Hi all. Welcome to the call. Alain Berranger, NPOC:will have to leave call in 30 minutes...apologies Julie Hedlund:I was dropped from the call Julie Hedlund:I am dialing back in Julie Hedlund:I am back in Jeff Neuman:I am jumping off of Adobe, but dialing in from my cell. Ron A:Thanks, Jeff. I'll look to you for #9 later in the agenda. Alain Berranger, NPOC:OK will do! thks! J. Scott Evans:the majortiy of the kudos for these revisions belongs to Anne Thomas Rickert:more than I am more than happy to work with you. Thomas Rickert:avri +1 J. Scott Evans:Proposed revision: J. Scott Evans:In the case of a proposed termination or suspension of PDP, the GNSO liaison to the Working Group shall promptly submit to the Council a written Termination Report or Suspension Report specifying the reasons for the action taken and, if applicable, the points of view represented in the Working Group and the consensus status (as defined by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines) at the time such action is taken. The Council is required to conduct a public comment forum seeking community input on the report first prior to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). Thomas Rickert:In the last sentence it should read ....prior to conducting a vote on the termination _OR SUSPENSION_ of the PDP ... Thomas Rickert:With that amendment I like your proposal, J. Scott! avri:i forget how long is this call? Julie Hedlund:It's one hour avri:thanks J. Scott Evans:I just sent out a proposed revision to the list. Julie Hedlund:Thank you everyone. This meeting is adjourned. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task
by Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu Jan. 9, 2013

Jan. 9, 2013

I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in this specific instance: - the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on. - just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors were not aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they should be as it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a re-introduction of something that was properly introduced and voted on. - In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had given instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did not, the fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO rules, and if a constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the time to discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a motion (again, one properly introduced, seconded and voted on). - In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and referred the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion (without necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI before re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands are somewhat tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through - the mind boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and vote was improper or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive context within which ICANN is operating. 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 >>> Avri Doria 01/09/13 2:01 PM >>> Another thought experiment. There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG Policy Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, some voters got confused and voted against. Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote? Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to just reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and perhaps even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote? A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency beleive that its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be able to have a vote rescheduled at the next meeting? avri On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote: > > Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can be reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on reconsideration in the ByLaws. > > One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that one of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case it was the Chair who had been on the losing side. > > We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done. > > avri > > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote: > >> I tend to agree, >> >> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; >> To: 'Avri Doria' ; Jeff Neuman ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org ; >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson ; >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM >> >> >> Hi all, >> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" type inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going to discuss tomorrow. > > the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated. > >> >> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can provide prior to our call. > > It is all in the g-counci Procedures. > And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions already made. > > >> >> Thank you >> 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 original message. >> >> -----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: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM >> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I guess I do not support that. >> >> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should have past. >> >> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. >> >> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. >> >> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an NCUC based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go her way. >> >> avri >> >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >> >>> >>> Avri, >>> >>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did not happen. >>> >>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>> >>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@ella.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time >>> To: Neuman, Jeff >>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org; Jonathan Robinson >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that is not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion has passed or not. >>> >>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the reality of the situation. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on consensus. >>>> >>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a second measurement of consensus is not an issue. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>>> >>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@ella.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org >>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: >>>> >>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two remedies were possible. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and accountability. >>>> >>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------- >> For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, 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 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 >> >

4 3

RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task
by jscottevans＠yahoo.com Jan. 9, 2013

Jan. 9, 2013

I agree.<br/><br/>Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone<br/>

1 0

Motions in GNSO Council Operating Procedures
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 9, 2013

Jan. 9, 2013

All, As Anne requested, below are the sections of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures relating to the notice of motions, as well as those relating to voting thresholds, motions and votes. I will prepare these as a document to view in the Adobe Connect room for today's meeting later today. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Excerpts from GNSO Council Operating Procedures, v2.5, 13 September 2012 Section 3.3 Notice of Meetings Reports and motions should be submitted to the GNSO Council for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 8 business days before the GNSO Council meeting. 4.2 Voting Thresholds Unless otherwise specified in these procedures or in the ICANN Bylaws, to pass a motion or other action, greater than 50% of the eligible voters in each House must cast affirmative votes. For all votes taken, the number of eligible voters in each House shall be fixed to the number of seats allocated in theBylaws (a.k.a. the denominator) and is not affected by the number of members present or absent at the meeting in which the motion or other action is initiated. For rules and procedures concerning abstentions and their impact on voting thresholds, refer to Section 4.5-Abstentions). 4.3 Motions and Votes 4.3.1 Eligibility: All actions of, or votes by, the GNSO Council are taken or cast only by the members of the GNSO Council. Except as otherwise provided in these procedures, persons who are not Council members may not vote. Acts by the GNSO Council members present at any meeting at which there is a quorum shall be acts of the GNSO Council unless otherwise provided herein. 4.3.2 For each motion or action of the GNSO Council requiring a vote, Councilors may enter either a “No”, “Yes, or “Abstain.” For a vote of “Abstain,” a reason or explanation is required. For votes of “No” or “Yes”, at the discretion of the Councilor, an explanation or reason may be provided which will be recorded in the meeting minutes.

1 0

REMINDER: Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting teleconference - Wednesday 9 January 2013 at 21:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 9, 2013

Jan. 9, 2013

Dear All, This is a reminder that the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting teleconference is scheduled TODAY Wednesday 9 January 2013 at 21:00UTC for 1 hour. 16:00 EST, 13:00 PST, 21:00 London, 22:00 CET For other places see: http://tinyurl.com/belfyf6 Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/standcommdraft/ Dial-in details are below. If you require a dial-out, please email us (gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>) your preferred contact number. Thank you Kind regards, Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ____________________________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: SCI For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. ____________________________________________________________________________ Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA* 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA 000-800-852-1268 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 *Access to your conference call will be either of the numbers listed, dependent on the participants' local telecom provider. Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. ----------------------------

1 0

Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task
by J. Scott Evans Jan. 9, 2013

Jan. 9, 2013

I tend to agree,

2 2

RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task
by Neuman, Jeff Jan. 9, 2013

Jan. 9, 2013

Avri, Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did not happen. I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@ella.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org; Jonathan Robinson Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Hi, Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that is not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion has passed or not. To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the reality of the situation. avri On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > > I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on consensus. > > All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a second measurement of consensus is not an issue. > > Best regards, > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > > Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@ella.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org > Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > > On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: > >> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two remedies were possible. >> > > > I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and accountability. > > Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. > > avri > > >

3 2

Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Agenda for SCI Meeting 09 January
by Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu Jan. 9, 2013

Jan. 9, 2013

Hi, as I'd mentioned in a comment on the Doodle poll, I won't be able to make this week's call. I look forward to catching up after the call and to contributing via the mailing list. I hope everyone had a happy and peaceful new year! 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 >>> Julie Hedlund 01/09/13 6:04 AM >>> Dear SCI members, On behalf of the SCI Chair and Vice Chair, Ron Andruff and Avri Doria, below is a proposed agenda for the SCI meeting tomorrow, Wednesday, 09 January 2013 at 2100 UTC> Please let us know if you have any questions, comments, or changes. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Agenda, SCI Meeting, Wednesday, 09 January 2013 at 2100 UTC 1. Roll call (1 min) 2. Statement of Interests (1 min) 3. Approval of the agenda (1 min) 4. Chair/Vice Chair elections and terms and SCI Charter changes (10 mins) 5. Action on Working Group survey (10 mins) 6. Termination and Suspension of a PDP (15 mins) 7. GNSO Council Liaison to the SCI (5 mins) 8. Whether the SCI should solicit work or take on work from the GNSO Council (5 mins) 9. Re-submitting a motion ‹ Background Discussion (10 mins) 10. AOB (2 mins)

1 0