April 2014 - Gnso-improvem-impl-sc

Consensus Call - GNSO Working Groups Consensus Levels document
by Mary Wong May 20, 2014

May 20, 2014

Dear all, Attached is the latest draft of the proposal for SCI submission to the GNSO Council relating to the language in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines concerning Consensus Levels for Working Groups. As discussed on the various SCI calls and related emails, the SCI will be proposing that the actual text currently in the Guidelines concerning the Consensus Levels remain unchanged for now; instead, the SCI will recommend that a footnote be added to explain that the Levels can and do include designations of ³consensus against². In addition, the SCI will also recommend to the Council that the current Consensus Levels text be reviewed as soon as feasible. Please indicate if you, on behalf of your stakeholder groups/constituencies, support or do not support the current draft proposal and language. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org * One World. One Internet. *

4 6

Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft)
by Mary Wong May 13, 2014

May 13, 2014

Dear SCI members, Please find attached the latest version of the proposed language relating to Waivers/Exceptions for motions in the GNSO Operating Procedures. As noted in last week¹s call, the Consensus Call for this issue will be conducted via this email list. Note, however, that we are suggesting a slight change to the language circulated by Greg and discussed in the email thread below. In reviewing the proposed language prior to circulation for a Consensus Call, we noted that the suggested Explanation in Greg¹s latest email (below) would entail a further change to the revised Resubmission of a Motion language in the GNSO Operating Procedures, which initial revisions were approved by the GNSO Council (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201403) As any further changes will have to be published for public comment, an alternative solution might be to add a sentence to the proposed Waivers/Exception language to address the concern voiced by Amr in an earlier email. Please indicate whether you, on behalf of your respective stakeholder groups and/or constituencies, support or do not support the attached proposed language. If in light of this email note you wish to discuss the issue further prior to concluding the Consensus Call, please indicate this as well. Thank you all! A second email relating to a Consensus Call for the separate issue of language relating to Working Group Consensus Levels will follow shortly. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org * One World. One Internet. * From: Ron Andruff <randruff(a)rnapartners.com> Date: Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 6:13 PM To: "'Shatan, Gregory S.'" <GShatan(a)reedsmith.com>, 'Amr Elsadr' <aelsadr(a)egyptig.org> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft > Thanks Greg and Amr. This looks like a good solution to me as well. > > Kind regards, > > RA > > > Ron Andruff > RNA Partners > www.rnapartners.com <http://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, April 23, 2014 20:51 > To: 'Amr Elsadr' > Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating > Procedures: Revised Draft > > I think the solution to this problem is to revise the language quoted below > and keep the waiver section as is. > > For example: > > ³1. Explanation: The Councilor submitting the motion must also submit an > explanation for the resubmission of the motion. The explanation need not > accompany the motion when it is resubmitted; however, the explanation must be > submitted no later than the deadline for submitting the motion (i.e., no later > than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day 10 calendar days before > the Council meeting at which the motion is to be reconsidered, unless the > requirements for late submission in Section 3.3.2 are also met). The > explanation does not need to meet any requirements other than being submitted > in a timely manner.² > > Thoughts? > > Greg > > > From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org] > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 4:53 PM > To: Shatan, Gregory S. > Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating > Procedures: Revised Draft > > > Hi Greg and all, > > > > I know I¹ve brought this up repetitively and I hate being a nag, but there¹s > still an inconvenient loophole in this text regarding resubmission of motions. > On its meeting of March 26th, 2014, the GNSO Council approved the SCI > recommendation to amend the GNSO Operating Procedures by adding sections 4.3.3 > and 4.3.4 detailing the guidelines of motions being resubmitted. Section > 4.3.3, claus number 1 reads as follows: > > >> >> ³1. Explanation: The Councilor submitting the motion must also submit an >> explanation for the resubmission of the motion. The explanation need not >> accompany the motion when it is resubmitted; however, the explanation must be >> submitted no later than the deadline for submitting the motion (i.e., no >> later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day 10 calendar days >> before the Council meeting at which the motion is to be reconsidered). The >> explanation does not need to meet any requirements other than being submitted >> in a timely manner.² > > > > If the SCI determines that it would like the 10-day rule waiver to also apply > to motions being resubmitted (and not exclusively to motions being submitted > for the first time) in its recommendation to the Council, then there needs to > be clarifying text to that effect. If the SCI does not recommend that the > waiver should apply to resubmitted motions, then no further action is > necessary. If the former is true, and not the latter, the the way I read it, > the required clarification should either be added as a fourth bullet to 3.3.2 > referencing 4.3.3, or perhaps an added numbered item to 4.3.4 (Limitations and > Exceptions to Resubmission of a Motion) referring to the waiver rule in 3.3.2. > Without these changes, I can¹t see how the text of the operating procedures > will support the waiver rule being applied to resubmitted motions in the event > that the need arises. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Amr > > > On Apr 22, 2014, at 9:53 PM, Shatan, Gregory S. <GShatan(a)reedsmith.com> wrote: > > > As discussed today on the SCI call, I agree with Marika¹s comment below, and I > have deleted the sentence in question. In the attached draft, I have accepted > all the changes from the prior draft and then deleted that sentence. There > were no other comments on the list or on the call. > > > > I would suggest that this draft should be considered final (subject only to > ³accepting² the deletion of the sentence so that this is a clean document) for > purposes of moving to the next step with this amendment to the Operating > Procedures. > > > 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: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:34 AM > To: Shatan, Gregory S.; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating > Procedures: Revised Draft > > > > Thanks, Greg. I'm still not clear to why it would say 'For the avoidance of > doubt, if the requirements above are not met, the motion shall not be > considered ³submitted²? Why can't it be considered submitted, but just not > eligible to be considered for a vote at the meeting? The current practice is > also that if a motion is submitted after the deadline it may get discussed, > just not voted on during the meeting, but there is no need to resubmit it for > the next meeting as it is already considered submitted and automatically > carried over. Maybe I'm missing something? > > > > Best regards, > > > > Marika > > > > From: <Shatan>, "Gregory S." <GShatan(a)reedsmith.com > <mailto:GShatan@reedsmith.com> > > Date: Thursday 17 April 2014 03:40 > 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] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating > Procedures: Revised Draft > > > > All: > > > > Following up on our last meeting, I attach a revised version of the amendment > to the Operating Procedures dealing with ³late² submission of a motion, with > my revisions marked in ³track changes.² > > > > I look forward to your comments. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Greg > > > > Gregory S. Shatan > Deputy Chair | Tech Transactions Group > IP | Technology | Media > ReedSmithLLP > The business of relationships > 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/> > > > > > * * * > > 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 > <Motion waiver draft language - 22 April 2014.DOC> >

6 14

Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft
by Marika Konings April 24, 2014

April 24, 2014

Thanks, Greg. I'm still not clear to why it would say 'For the avoidance of doubt, if the requirements above are not met, the motion shall not be considered ³submitted²? Why can't it be considered submitted, but just not eligible to be considered for a vote at the meeting? The current practice is also that if a motion is submitted after the deadline it may get discussed, just not voted on during the meeting, but there is no need to resubmit it for the next meeting as it is already considered submitted and automatically carried over. Maybe I'm missing something? Best regards, Marika From: <Shatan>, "Gregory S." <GShatan(a)reedsmith.com> Date: Thursday 17 April 2014 03:40 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft All: Following up on our last meeting, I attach a revised version of the amendment to the Operating Procedures dealing with ³late² submission of a motion, with my revisions marked in ³track changes.² I look forward to your comments. Best regards, Greg Gregory S. Shatan Deputy Chair | Tech Transactions Group IP | Technology | Media ReedSmithLLP The business of relationships 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212.549.0275 | Phone 917.816.6428 | Mobile 212.521.5450 | Fax gshatan(a)reedsmith.com www.reedsmith.com * * * 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

4 6

MP3 recording of the SCI meeting - 22 April 2014
by Terri Agnew April 22, 2014

April 22, 2014

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Tuesday, 22 April 2014 at 19:00 UTC. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20140422-en.mp3 On page: <http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#oct> http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#apr (transcripts and recording are found on the calendar page) Attendees: Ronald Andruff - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Primary - Chair Angie Graves - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Alternate Greg Shatan - IPC - Alternate Jennifer Wolfe - Nominating Committee Appointee - Primary Jennifer Standiford - Registrar Stakeholder Group - Primary Amr Elsadr - NCUC Alternate Apologies: Cintra Sooknanan: NPOC Primary - SCI Vice Chair Thomas Rickert - Nominating Committee Appointee - Alternate Anne Aikman Scalese - IPC - Primary ICANN Staff: Marika Konings Mary Wong Terri Agnew ** 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, Terri Agnew Adobe Chat Transcript 22 April 2014 Terri Agnew:Dear all, welcome to the SCI meeting on the 22nd April 2014 at 19:00 UTC Greg Shatan:Waiting to get on the audio bridge.... Marika Konings:Quite a few alternate members missing from the list: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/4.+Members Marika Konings:4 alternate positions not filled Marika Konings:We do still need an SOI for the NCSG alternate, but we will follow up on that Ron A:Thank you Marika. Mary Wong:Deadline for documents to next GNSO Council meeting is 28 April. Terri Agnew:Jennifer Standiford has joined Jennifer Standiford:Sorry I am late - my previous meeting was running behind Marika Konings:And there is also NetMundial - some members may be travelling there. Mary Wong:Council call is 8 May (deadline is 28 April) Marika Konings:Greg, the proposed changes would first need to be posted for public comment before being submitted to the GNSO Council Marika Konings:as it concerns changes to the operating procedures Marika Konings:The Charter provides that: 1 representative from each constituency/SG Amr Elsadr:Apologies for being late. I was delayed. Terri Agnew:Amr, I have added you to the attenance Amr Elsadr:Thanks Terri. I'm dialling in now. Amr Elsadr:Hi. I just dialled in, and NCSG/NPOC/NCUC seem to be the topic of conversation. ?? Amr Elsadr:Thanks Ron. Amr Elsadr:I'm guessing quite a few folks are at Net-Mundial. Marika Konings:Attendance has actually picked up (RySG, ISPs, NPOC, NCSG still missing though) Amr Elsadr:Thanks. That was quick. Bye.

1 0

FW: Call to facilitate finalization of email voting proposal for SCI?
by Shatan, Gregory S. April 22, 2014

April 22, 2014

I note that Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC primary rep to the SCI) sent apologies for this call to a subgroup of the SCI, but did not send it to the full group. I'm forwarding it to the full group for the record. 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 www.reedsmith.com -----Original Message----- From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com] Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 12:41 PM To: 'Mary Wong'; Avri Doria; 'Thomas Rickert' Cc: 'Ron Andruff'; Shatan, Gregory S. Subject: RE: Call to facilitate finalization of email voting proposal for SCI? Mary, Can you please set up a call? I am presenting Continuing Legal Education to the Arizona State Bar tomorrow and unfortunately will have to miss SCI again - I hope Greg will be on the line. I know Avri wants to work collaboratively online somehow. I think she mentioned this works even better if all are on a call and to me that makes the most sense. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | Suite 700 One South Church Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman(a)LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com -----Original Message----- From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org] Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 11:36 AM To: Avri Doria; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert' Subject: Re: Call to facilitate finalization of email voting proposal for SCI? Thanks, Avri. I believe that ICANN is working on increasing and improving collaboration tools in conjunction with the new website rollout and related projects, so hopefully for policy development work we'll have some better tools at our disposal soon. Please let me know how I can assist you all with finalizing this document and task. Thanks much for picking this up! Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org * One World. One Internet. * -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> Date: Friday, April 18, 2014 12:24 PM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrlaw.com>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert(a)anwaelte.de> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: Call to facilitate finalization of email voting proposal for SCI? >Hi, > >Since I only get to in fragmentary moments between other activities, I >am doing my editing on google drive: > >https://docs.google.com/document/d/1J6jFx45SeWW5DKkxG0j8JT3dt1l3P6aDwvm >JNf >6jbcw/edit?usp=sharing > >I have set it up so anyone with the URL can read and comment. > >You all have not added any editors, because I got the impression some >would prefer not to be included. > >Once I finish my edit pass, I will export a doc file containing my >comments and any edits I propose. > >If you want to be added to the editing list, please let me know and I >will add you. Tell me what address you want me to use. > >cheers > >avri > > > >On 17-Apr-14 10:28, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> The problem with the ICANN wiki is that is is just as static as >> passing document back and forth. >> >> My experience is actually that I find the collaborative editing >> environment much more of a sharing envrionemnt. Especially when >> using them while on a phone call or in person. >> >> I wish ICANN offered such active collaborative editing tools. >> >> As for security, what we are doing is not something that needs to be >> secret, in fact it should optimally be visible to anyone in the world >> that wants to see it. Or even comment. Google drive allows that. >> >> >> avri >> >> >> On 17-Apr-14 10:21, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> Avri, Lots of folks have expressed concern over security issues in >>> those workspaces. Is there some reason we can't work with ICANN >>> tools and email? Separately, none of that stuff is, from my point >>> of view, as collaborative as a phone call, which is of course not as >>> collaborative as a live meeting, but alas! Anne >>> >>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | Suite >>> 700 One South Church Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) >>> 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman(a)LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] >>> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 7:10 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>> 'Thomas Rickert' Cc: Mary Wong Subject: Re: Call to facilitate >>> finalization of email voting proposal for SCI? >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Ok with me. However, I will be absorbed in the WGEC the week after. >>> But this is less intense so should be able to find a time early in >>> the morning or late in the evening UTC. >>> >>> I still strongly support the idea of finding a way to do online >>> collaborative work. I the meantime I will try to take an edit pass >>> through the document. Might even do it in Google drive, we can >>> always export word docs from that if needed. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> Ps I know it is disgraceful for a non commercial type to be so >>> hooked on a commercial product. It is just such a good tool and >>> good tool trumps all NC-C prejudice. >>> >>> >>> On 17-Apr-14 09:59, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>>> Let's just schedule the call for after the NetMundial meeting. >>>> Thanks, Anne >>>> >>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | Suite >>>> 700 One South Church Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) >>>> 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman(a)LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>>> -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Rickert >>>> [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 3:46 AM >>>> To: Avri Doria Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Mary Wong Subject: Re: >>>> Call to facilitate finalization of email voting proposal for SCI? >>>> >>>> Hi all, I could offer today for a call. Friday and Monday are >>>> difficult for me as I am quite hooked up with private matters (both >>>> are public holidays in Germany - Good Friday and Easter). I can do >>>> online collaboration, though. >>>> >>>> Best, Thomas >>>> >>>> >>>> Am 17.04.2014 um 11:55 schrieb Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org>: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I am flying off to NetMundial on Sunday so can't do it after that. >>>>> >>>>> Can we put it on google drive or another pad and do online >>>>> collaborative work? >>>>> >>>>> avri >>>>> >>>>> On 16-Apr-14 19:30, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>>>>> Mary, Monday would be doable for an initial discussion. I am >>>>>> out of the office Friday but have a very clear day on Monday. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you, Anne >>>>>> >>>>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>>>>> Suite 700 One South Church Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>>>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman(a)LRRLaw.com | >>>>>> www.LRRLaw.com -----Original Message----- From: Mary Wong >>>>>> [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 >>>>>> 4:18 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert >>>>>> Subject: Call to facilitate finalization of email voting proposal >>>>>> for SCI? >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Anne, Avri and Thomas, >>>>>> >>>>>> As suggested by Anne in her email (below), I am writing to ask if >>>>>> you would like staff to assist with scheduling a call among you >>>>>> to discuss the email voting issue. As the next SCI meeting is >>>>>> next Tuesday, I recognize that time may be an issue but >>>>>> nonetheless, it may be that you would like to at least do a quick >>>>>> call before then. You may wish, for example, to discuss the draft >>>>>> circulated by Anne last Tuesday and possibly also set a tentative >>>>>> date for completion of the proposal. >>>>>> >>>>>> If so, would any time on Friday or Monday suit? Please let me >>>>>> know and I will go ahead and schedule the call. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks and cheers Mary >>>>>> >>>>>> Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for >>>>>> Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 >>>>>> Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org >>>>>> >>>>>> * One World. One Internet. * >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne >>>>>> <AAikman(a)lrrlaw.com> Date: Tuesday, April 8, 2014 1:24 PM To: >>>>>> "'Shatan, Gregory S.'" <GShatan(a)reedsmith.com>, 'Amr Elsadr' >>>>>> <aelsadr(a)egyptig.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> >>>>>> Cc: >>>>>> "<gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org>" >>>>>> <gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: >>>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO WG Definitions of Decision-Making >>>>>> Levels >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks Greg. I think this is a helpful observation. >>>>>>> Regarding "day job", regrettably mine conflicts for today's SCI >>>>>>> call . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regarding the e-mail voting issues, I had circulated in January >>>>>>> a redline with questions about that process. It is attached >>>>>>> again, although it may be impacted by some suggestions that were >>>>>>> made regarding the 10 day waiver recommendation. In this >>>>>>> regard, my comment is that e-mail voting is not appropriate for >>>>>>> unanimous consent to waive the >>>>>>> 10 day rule since it does not seem to me that it could meet the >>>>>>> litmus test of "participation in full discussion" that applies >>>>>>> to e-mail voting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> With respect to both the consensus levels and the waiver of the >>>>>>> ten day rule, whatever is determined in today's call will have >>>>>>> to be taken back to IPC for formal input. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I also think, as I said at the end of the Singapore meeting, >>>>>>> that Thomas, Avri, and I need to schedule a separate call on the >>>>>>> e-mail voting issue as a subgroup. Perhaps we could ask staff >>>>>>> to assist in scheduling the call? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Very sorry I cannot participate today but I must attend a >>>>>>> meeting of all lawyers in my firm's Tucson office occurring at >>>>>>> the same hour. Thank you, Anne >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>>>>>> Suite 700 One South Church Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>>>>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman(a)LRRLaw.com | >>>>>>> www.LRRLaw.com -----Original Message----- From: >>>>>>> owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org >>>>>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of >>>>>>> Shatan, Gregory S. Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 8:23 AM To: >>>>>>> 'Amr Elsadr'; Marika Konings Cc: >>>>>>> <gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: >>>>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO WG Definitions of Decision-Making >>>>>>> Levels >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've been giving this some thought (which unfortunately I kept >>>>>>> to myself). There are really 2 problems here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Dealing with the "consensus against" problem. This is our >>>>>>> explicit assignment. 2. The Decision-Making Levels are not >>>>>>> well-drafted in certain places. There is inconsistent use of >>>>>>> language (different words used to mean the same thing), >>>>>>> inconsistent use of "unstated phrases" (leaving out the same or >>>>>>> similar phrase when reiterating a point) creating ambiguity, >>>>>>> etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We are trying to solve both problems at the same time. We >>>>>>> started down this road because the fix needs to change all of >>>>>>> the levels (except perhaps Divergence). Then, slowly (as we >>>>>>> became more comfortable with the document), we started to see >>>>>>> the list's infirmities and tried to resolve them. In my day >>>>>>> job, I call this "drafting creep." The problem with drafting >>>>>>> creep is that it opens up issues beyond the one you were fixing, >>>>>>> and intertwines those two sets of issues in a way that >>>>>>> complicates review by others. This is what Marika is seeing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think we need to reverse course for the moment. I think both >>>>>>> (1) and (2) above are problems that need to be addressed. But >>>>>>> only (1) is really on our plate. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'll make the moderately radical suggestion that we keep our >>>>>>> hands off the current levels (in spite of their issues) and >>>>>>> address the "consensus against" issue (which does affect all the >>>>>>> levels) in a footnote (Amr's alternative 3, below). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At some later time, we can then follow up and improve the >>>>>>> drafting of the levels, separate from dealing with the >>>>>>> "consensus against" issue. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just my thoughts. I can try to draft a footnote today, but it's >>>>>>> a bit of a messy day (3 ICANN/IG calls plus that "day job"), so >>>>>>> I'm not sure if I can. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Greg Shatan >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> www.reedsmith.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: >>>>>>> owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org >>>>>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr >>>>>>> Elsadr Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 7:40 AM To: Marika Konings >>>>>>> Cc: <gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: >>>>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO WG Definitions of Decision-Making >>>>>>> Levels >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for the feedback, Marika. I’d be grateful if you pointed >>>>>>> out the specifics in the document on today’s call. I have to >>>>>>> admit, I’ve been struggling with it. I’m no lawyer…, that’s for >>>>>>> sure. :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In any case, the sub-team’s intent has always been to address >>>>>>> revisions to take into consideration when consensus against WG >>>>>>> recommendations is the situation, as divergence does not reflect >>>>>>> this situation (as was the case with the IGO/INGO WG). That’s >>>>>>> probably why the definition of divergence is the only one that >>>>>>> hasn’t really been substantively changed. The focus has been on >>>>>>> the rest so far. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Still…, we do have the three ways to move forward that Ron had >>>>>>> previously suggested: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Recommend changes in the definitions to the GNSO Council when >>>>>>> the SCI finalises them. 2. To not recommend any changes at this >>>>>>> time, and postpone changes to see if they indeed become >>>>>>> necessary in the future (although there have been some >>>>>>> recommendations not to do this). 3. The third option is to not >>>>>>> change the definitions, but instead to add a footnote to them >>>>>>> indicating that the decision-making levels could be used when >>>>>>> consensus is for or against WG recommendations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks again, Marika. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Amr >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Apr 8, 2014, at 1:24 PM, Marika Konings >>>>>>> <marika.konings(a)icann.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Apologies for having missed the F2F meeting in Singapore, but >>>>>>>> how do these changes address the specific question that was put >>>>>>>> forward by the GNSO Council on behalf of the IGO/INGO PDP WG: >>>>>>>> 'and specifically requests the SCI to review and, if deemed >>>>>>>> appropriate, recommend revised or additional language to apply >>>>>>>> to situations where working groups may reach sufficient >>>>>>>> consensus against a particular proposal such that the >>>>>>>> appropriate consensus level cannot accurately be described as >>>>>>>> No Consensus/Divergence'? The additions / edits may be helpful >>>>>>>> clarifications but they seem to go beyond the scope of the >>>>>>>> specific question put forward to the SCI. But maybe I am >>>>>>>> missing something, so I am looking forward to discussing this >>>>>>>> further on the call later today. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Marika >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 08/04/14 13:12, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr(a)egyptig.org> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I¹ve taken a stab at some very slight word-smithing on the >>>>>>>>> last draft of the WG consensus levels discussed at our F2F in >>>>>>>>> Singapore. I¹ve tried to capture the comments made, and a >>>>>>>>> little more and look forward to a discussion on this during >>>>>>>>> today¹s call. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have admittedly done this only today, so have not had time >>>>>>>>> to consult with the rest of the sub-team. Greg, Thomas, >>>>>>>>> CintraŠ, my apologies. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Amr >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <default.xml> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * * * >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use >>>>>>> of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. >>>>>>> If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the >>>>>>> intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for >>>>>>> delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient >>>>>>> you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or >>>>>>> copying of this message or any attachment is strictly >>>>>>> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, >>>>>>> please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The >>>>>>> information transmitted in this message and any attachments may >>>>>>> be privileged, is intended only for the personal and >>>>>>> confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by >>>>>>> the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we >>>>>>> advise you that if this message or any attachments 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>> >>>>>> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of >>>>>> the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the >>>>>> reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended >>>>>> recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the >>>>>> message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby >>>>>> notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this >>>>>> message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have >>>>>> received this communication in error, please notify us >>>>>> immediately by replying to the sender. The information >>>>>> transmitted in this message and any attachments may be >>>>>> privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential >>>>>> use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic >>>>>> Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. >>>>>> >>>>>> In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we >>>>>> advise you that if this message or any attachments 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. >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of >>>> the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader >>>> of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or >>>> the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or >>>> attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that >>>> any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any >>>> attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this >>>> communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to >>>> the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any >>>> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal >>>> and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by >>>> the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. >>>> >>>> In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise >>>> you that if this message or any attachments 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of >>> the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader >>> of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or >>> the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or >>> attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that >>> any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any >>> attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this >>> communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to >>> the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any >>> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and >>> confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the >>> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. >>> >>> In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise >>> you that if this message or any attachments 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. >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this message or any attachments 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.

1 0

Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft
by Julie Hedlund April 18, 2014

April 18, 2014

Greg, I have added this to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/22+April+2014. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: <Shatan>, "Gregory S." <GShatan(a)reedsmith.com> Date: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 9:40 PM To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft All: Following up on our last meeting, I attach a revised version of the amendment to the Operating Procedures dealing with ³late² submission of a motion, with my revisions marked in ³track changes.² I look forward to your comments. Best regards, Greg Gregory S. Shatan Deputy Chair | Tech Transactions Group IP | Technology | Media ReedSmithLLP The business of relationships 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212.549.0275 | Phone 917.816.6428 | Mobile 212.521.5450 | Fax gshatan(a)reedsmith.com www.reedsmith.com * * * 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

Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposal Regarding GNSO WG Definitions of Decision-Making Levels
by Julie Hedlund April 18, 2014

April 18, 2014

Greg, I have added this to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/22+April+2014. Best regards, Julie On 4/18/14 2:42 PM, "Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan(a)reedsmith.com> wrote: >All: > >I am sending to the entire SCI a proposal relating to the "consensus >(etc.) against" issue we have been discussing. This was circulated to >the subteam (Amr, Cintra, Thomas and Mary) earlier this week. Based on >discussions in and after Singapore, this proposal does not change the >Decision-Making Levels language in the text of the PDP Manual. Instead, >this proposal contains a new explanatory footnote appended to the list of >existing consensus levels. > >(Please note that I have included the discussion of "divergence" in the >footnote because a few people in the IGO/INGO Working Group insisted that >the situation should be described as "Divergence" even though it was >clear that a strong majority of the Working Group had coalesced around a >position actively opposing a recommendation. While their position was (in >my opinion) more political than logical, I thought it should be dealt >with nonetheless.) > >I suggest that, if and when this is handed up to the GNSO Council, we >should note to the Council that we found a number of notable >linguistic/drafting flaws in the consensus levels. However, after prior >revisions and deliberation, we restrained ourselves from fixing these >flaws at this time so that the "consensus against" issue could be dealt >with in isolation and with clarity. I suggest that we recommend that the >drafting issues be dealt with in the near future. > >I look forward to your comments. > >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 >www.reedsmith.com > > > > * * * > >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

Proposal Regarding GNSO WG Definitions of Decision-Making Levels
by Shatan, Gregory S. April 18, 2014

April 18, 2014

All: I am sending to the entire SCI a proposal relating to the "consensus (etc.) against" issue we have been discussing. This was circulated to the subteam (Amr, Cintra, Thomas and Mary) earlier this week. Based on discussions in and after Singapore, this proposal does not change the Decision-Making Levels language in the text of the PDP Manual. Instead, this proposal contains a new explanatory footnote appended to the list of existing consensus levels. (Please note that I have included the discussion of "divergence" in the footnote because a few people in the IGO/INGO Working Group insisted that the situation should be described as "Divergence" even though it was clear that a strong majority of the Working Group had coalesced around a position actively opposing a recommendation. While their position was (in my opinion) more political than logical, I thought it should be dealt with nonetheless.) I suggest that, if and when this is handed up to the GNSO Council, we should note to the Council that we found a number of notable linguistic/drafting flaws in the consensus levels. However, after prior revisions and deliberation, we restrained ourselves from fixing these flaws at this time so that the "consensus against" issue could be dealt with in isolation and with clarity. I suggest that we recommend that the drafting issues be dealt with in the near future. I look forward to your comments. 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 www.reedsmith.com * * * 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

REMINDER re: Action items/Next Meeting: SCI Meeting 08 April
by Julie Hedlund April 18, 2014

April 18, 2014

Dear All, Please find below the action items and their updates from the call on 08 April. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/08+April+2014. Our next meeting is scheduled for **Tuesday, 22 April at 1900 UTC for 1 hour (12:00 PDT , 15:00 EDT, 20:00 London, 21:00 CEST).** An announcement was sent separately. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director SCI Meeting 08 April Updated Actions 1. Review of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines Consensus Levels (sub team: Amr, Cintra, Greg, Thomas) -- Propose language to the list for the footnote. UPDATE: Staff will assist in setting up a call for the sub team. 2. Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures (sub team: Greg, Marie-Laure) -- Greg will provide some revised language based on discussion in the meeting, including a clarification on resubmitted motions. UPDATE: Greg has circulated a revised version (attached and on the wiki). 3. Voting by Email: (sub team: Anne, Avri, Thomas) -- Meet to review the issue of broadening the scope. UPDATE: staff will assist in setting up a call for the sub team.

1 0

Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft
by Shatan, Gregory S. April 17, 2014

April 17, 2014

All: Following up on our last meeting, I attach a revised version of the amendment to the Operating Procedures dealing with “late” submission of a motion, with my revisions marked in “track changes.” I look forward to your comments. Best regards, Greg Gregory S. Shatan Deputy Chair | Tech Transactions Group IP | Technology | Media ReedSmithLLP The business of relationships 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212.549.0275 | Phone 917.816.6428 | Mobile 212.521.5450 | Fax gshatan(a)reedsmith.com www.reedsmith.com * * * 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