December 2013 - Gnso-improvem-impl-sc

RE: Re-submission of a motion
by Ron Andruff Dec. 9, 2013

Dec. 9, 2013

Thank you Greg. It would be very helpful if everyone can send the clean version to their constituencies with a request for any and all input PRIOR TO our December 17th call. Thanks in advance. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners <http://www.rnapartners.com> www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Shatan, Gregory S. Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2013 19:32 To: 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Actions/Next Meeting is 17 December All: I have attached clean and “track changes” versions of the revised proposal on Resubmission of a Motion, reflecting yesterday’s discussion (see no. 2 in Julie’s email). I look forward to any comments you all may have and then getting this to the constituencies for their feedback. Best regards, Greg Gregory S. Shatan Partner Reed Smith LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212.549.0275 (Phone) 917.816.6428 (Mobile) 212.521.5450 (Fax) gshatan(a)reedsmith.com <mailto:gshatan@reedsmith.com> www.reedsmith.com <http://www.reedsmith.com> 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] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 4:09 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Actions/Next Meeting is 17 December Importance: High Dear SCI members, Please see the actions from the meeting on 03 December 2013. Our next meeting is scheduled for 17 December 20:00 UTC for 1 hour (12:00 PST , 15:00 EST, 20:00 London, 21:00 CET — a separate notice will be sent with teleconference information). As agreed in Buenos Aires the SCI will revert to a 2-week schedule when it has outstanding items, although to avoid the New Year holiday the meeting following 17 December will be on 07 January. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director 1. Working Group Self-Assessment: Mikey O'Conner and Ron Andruff will enage Ken to draft a message for Mikey to send to the WG to retake the survey and set a deadline for 2 weeks (17 December). Julie Hedlund will send the summary of the previous survey to the SCI list (done). 2 Re-Submitting a Motion: Greg Shatan will re-write B Limitations and Exceptions #4 to change "tabled" to "deferred" and make other adjustments as discussed. SCI members will send the revised language to their constituencies to get feedback by a 2-week deadline (17 December). Continue discussion on whether "consent" is needed before "agenda" in item A Rule, #3. 3. Voting by Email: Avri Doria and Thomas Rickert will work on an approach. 4. Waiver/Exception to GNSO Operating Procedures: Continue discussion on the next call and on the list. 5. AOB: Next meeting is 17 December and the SCI will move back to a 2-week schedule when it has outstanding items (excepting meetings that fall on holidays). * * * This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation. * * * To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00

1 0

MP3 SCI meeting - Tuesday 03 December 2013 at 2000 UTC
by Julia Charvolen Dec. 4, 2013

Dec. 4, 2013

Dear All, The next Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting will be held on Tuesday 17 December at 2000 UTC. Please find the MP3 recording of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Tuesday, 03 December 2013 at 20:00UTC. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20131203-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) Attendees: Ray Fassett- RySG - Primary Ronald Andruff – Commercial and Business Users Constituency – Primary – Chair Angie Graves - Commercial and Business Users Constituency – Alternate Wolf-Ulrich Knoben – ISPCP – Primary Mikey O’Connor – ISPCP – Alternate Avri Doria – Non Commercial SG – Primary – Vice-Chair Amr Elsadr – NCUC - Alternate Jennifer Wolfe – NCA - primary Greg Shatan – IPC – Alternate Marie Laure Lemineur – NPOC - Primary Apologies: Thomas Rickert - NCA ICANN Staff: Julie Hedlund Mary Wong Julia Charvolen ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Julia Charvolen For GNSO Secretariat Adobe Connect chat transcript 03 December 2013: Mike O'Connor:hi Julia Mike O'Connor:i'm gonna dial in... Julia Charvolen:great Ron A:Hi all! Just getting on the call... Marie-laure Lemineur -NPOC:Hello Amr Elsadr:Hi. Just dialled in. Amr Elsadr:Same here, Ron. Ron A:Agreed, Mikey. We will circulate today for the members' review. Marie-laure Lemineur -NPOC:@Amr, agreed.. Greg Shatan:I am now dialed in. Amr Elsadr:Considering the outcome of the WG in the last few weeks, I even believe some of the answers might change. Positive effect for our purpose. Julia Charvolen:Greg Shatan joined the phone bridge Marie-laure Lemineur -NPOC:I am just reading it. But is there a limit in terms of number of times it could be re-submitted ? Marie-laure Lemineur -NPOC:thanks! Mike O'Connor:astounding! way to go Greg. Mike O'Connor:"tabled" is confusing in an international context Mary Wong:Yes, perhaps this group can consider an alternative word or just leaving it as "withdrawn" for the example) Avri Doria:Apologies, I need to leave now. Ron A:Thanks Avri Mike O'Connor:see ya Avri Avri Doria:Will worth with Thomas on email voting before next mtg. I hope. Mary Wong:Thanks Avri! Avri Doria:Work with ... Wolf Knoben: do we need No. 4 at all? Ron A:So we should postpone the discussion on email voting? Ron A:As I don't see Thomas in meeting room...? Wolf Knoben:we don't use "tabled" in the GNSO rules Amr Elsadr:Great. Thanks again Greg. Julie Hedlund:Thomas sent his apologies just a few minutes ago and will not be able to attend today. Amr Elsadr:@Wolf: +1 Ron A:Thanks Julie. Marie-laure Lemineur -NPOC:I agree it should stay... Marie-laure Lemineur -NPOC: 4) Amr Elsadr:Sounds good. Mike O'Connor:might just remove the word "consent" Amr Elsadr:@Mike: +1 Mike O'Connor:yeah. the consent agenda is at the end Julie Hedlund:@Mikey it is at the beginning of the meeting, prior to the regular agenda. Mike O'Connor:argh. Julie's right -- my bad Julie Hedlund:No worries Mikey ;-0 Mary Wong:A motion can be seconded at any time up to the calling of the vote. Mary Wong:Mikey, that's right. Julie Hedlund:+1 Mikey I think that was the intent Mary Wong:To clarify - if a vote is required, it can't be on the consent agenda. As Mikey says, the consent agenda notion was a "safeguard" PRIOR to the Council discussion and vote on the actual motion. Marie-laure Lemineur -NPOC:MIckey and myself Marie-laure Lemineur -NPOC:No nooooo Marie-laure Lemineur -NPOC:Go ahead.. Marie-laure Lemineur -NPOC:please Mary Wong:So if this group feels that the safeguard is no longer necessary, then as Mikey says the word "consent" can simply be dropped - so that for second resubmissions (aka third time submission) it would go straight into the main Council agenda provided the two seconds are obtained. Wolf Knoben:@Mary: that's how I recall the intention Ron A:@greg: Is your hand still up? Or do you wish to speak? Greg Shatan:Mary, I think that if the word "consent" is dropped, that makes it more difficult for the motion ot make to the Council's agenda (of any type). As now drafted, a resubmitted motion that gets the two seconds is eligible for the consent agenda; a motion that does not get the two seconds is ineligible for the consent agenda and would go straight to the "main" agenda. If the word "consent" is dropped, then the two seconds are required for the motion to get on the Council's agenda at all. Amr Elsadr:I feel a little lost on this topic. What is the context behind the question?? Mary Wong:@Amr, the question was whether and what process should be used in order to be able to waive a particular GNSO Operating Procedure/rule. Amr Elsadr:@Mary..., yes..., I get that. My question is why are we being asked to address this? What brought the question up? Mary Wong:The GNSO Op Proc does not contain specific wording as to when a particular, specified rule (e.g. 10-day deadline for motions) can be waived and by whom (e.g. Chair's discretion? Need for a vote to allow?) Amr Elsadr:@Mary: Good. A concrete example. Why would the Council want to have a waiver on a late submission of a motion? Mike O'Connor:here's an example -- a motion came in just a few minutes after the deadline... Greg Shatan:@Amr: I believe a motion on a WG final report was submitted in Durban too late for the 10 day rule. Since the motion had broad support, there was a desire to put the motion up anyway. But the 10-day rule has no exceptions. Mary Wong:@Amr, that's one of the questions for the SCI too - are there only certain limited circumstances in which a waiver will be permitted? or, as long as a process is created, any rule can be waived? etc. Amr Elsadr:I'm for digging deeper. Mike O'Connor:i'm fine with digging deeper Greg Shatan:Dig deeper... Marie-laure Lemineur -NPOC:digging deeper Mike O'Connor:deeper is best. best. best. best Amr Elsadr:LOL!! Marie-laure Lemineur -NPOC::) Wolf Knoben:+1 Mike O'Connor:i can't make that time... sorry Amr Elsadr:I'm fine with it. Marie-laure Lemineur -NPOC:agree Mary Wong:Thanks everyone! Marie-laure Lemineur -NPOC:thanks a lot. Amr Elsadr:Thanks everyone. Julie Hedlund:Thanks everyone and have a great morning, day, evening! Mary Wong::) Mike O'Connor:it would be good to schedule these meetings in advance... Marie-laure Lemineur -NPOC:Bye bye Amr Elsadr:Mikey..., have a great X-mas holiday.

1 0

Thick Whois Self-Assessment
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 3, 2013

Dec. 3, 2013

Dear SCI members, Per today's SCI call, attached please find the analysis of the survey responses from the Thick WHOIS WG members as provided by Ken Bour to Ron and Mikey. As also decided on today's SCI, Mikey will ask the WG to retake the survey, but Ron and Mikey asked that this summary be shared with the SCI members. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Waivers of GNSO operating procedures
by Mike O'Connor Dec. 3, 2013

Dec. 3, 2013

there's nothing like an upcoming meeting to focus the mind. i too would like to apologize for this last-minute post. Marie-Laure was all over this and i… um… wasn't. sorry about that. anyway, here's a summary of the email thread between Marie-Laure and me. i agree with Marie, it would be helpful to sharpen up the problem-statement a bit before we dive into describing the solution. mikey The request: Waivers and/or Exceptions to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures Which group do you represent? GNSO Council To which rules or processes do you refer? Submitting a motion and possibly other procedures Please outline the problems: The Council does not have a mechanism to waive or invoke an exception to and of its operating procedures. An example is whether the deadline for submitting motions could be waived in certain circumstances. Quote from Jonathan Robinson in the transcript at the Wrap Up Meeting in Durban on 18 July 2013: "And essentially I wasn’t empowered as chair by our rulebook to allow that motion to be put on the table even if technically although we have done it by precedent and prior practice, even if no one objected from the council I didn’t really - there isn’t really device in the rulebook to allow that to take place. So I personally I think that’s an area we should look at is the - when and under what circumstances - formal council procedure can be bypassed in the event that there is no objection from the council?" What specific changes do you propose to address the identified problems? The SCI should consider whether and how the Council could vote outside of a meeting and under what circumstances. Do you have any additional suggestion for making the rules/processes easier to administer? A waiver mechanism could allow the Council to consider a motion or document after the deadline of notice/submission to the Council has passed. A suggestion from Thomas Rickert Preferred path: Ask for the waiver if all councillors are present or represented. If waivers are granted, record them. That is the safest option. Alternate route in case not all councillors are present or represented: Ask whether councillors object - if someone objects - end of story If noone objects, go on record advising absent councillors to object to the Council leadership should they wish to do so. Marie-Laure's comments: Thomas proposal seems reasonable. I would add the following: -In both scenarios, it would be pertinent to specify whether the waiver has to be given orally or in a written form (email); -Scenario 2 (all councillors are not present) specify a deadline (maybe one or two weeks) when councillors who were not present are requested to object. -Scenario 2, specify that silence is interpreted as non-objection in case one of the councillors argue that they wanted to object but missed the emails where they were requested to object. -Key question that remain to be answered to : should this waiver be unlimited in time ? I think it shouldn´t to avoid abuses but it should at the same provide enough flexibility for the chair to address a particular issue with the councilors thus how can we reach a balance? should the waiver be specific as to what t is meant for ie. it should clearly specify what it is for in other word it should not become a permission to bypass any procedures under any circumstances. But I have been reading the background information that Julie sent (copied and pastel below) and I am wondering whether we are working on the right problem. It seems that from the text below, the problem highlighted by Jonathan was that he did not need us to establish rules for how waivers can be used but rather establishing guidelines as to when and how procedural rules can be bypassed when there is a waiver/exception. Which is quite different. Question for the group: Marie-Laure has the nub of it. what is the problem that the SCI is being asked to address? some discussion around this would be really helpful on today's call. thanks, mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0