- Gnso-improvem-impl-sc - lists.icann.org

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

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

Jan. 9, 2013

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

1 0

RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task
by Ron Andruff Jan. 8, 2013

Jan. 8, 2013

Dear Jonathan, Thank you very much for the background information to Councils request that the SCI consider the matter of resubmitting motions. By way of this email, I am forwarding it on to the SCI members for their review. The Committee will begin to address this tomorrow on our call. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff President RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10001 + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 10 _____ From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 4:58 AM To: 'Ron Andruff' Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff' Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Dear Ron, Certainly. I believe that the issue can be summarised as follows: 1. The motion in question related to the provision of temporary protection for certain Olympic Committee and Red Cross related terms. 2. The Council voted on the motion and two councillors (from the IPC) initially abstained from voting. 3. Due to council procedures, an abstention has the effect of voting against a motion. 4. When reminded (by the chair, myself) of the consequence of abstaining, one councillor asked to change his vote to support the motion and one councillor retained his abstention. 5. The votes were then tallied and the matter was closed with the motion narrowly defeated. However, had the one remaining IPC councillor not abstained, the motion would have narrowly passed. 6. Generally, a councillor who abstains is asked to provide a reason (by way of explanation) for his/her abstention. 7. In this case, the reason for the remaining IPC Councillor abstention was a perceived conflict of interest relating to the content of the motion. 8. In fact, Council rules cover for this situation and the abstention was not strictly necessary. This position was formally clarified later in the meeting and the remaining abstaining councillor asked to change his vote to support he motion . But, by this time the matter had been formally closed and some councillors had left the meeting. The net effect of all of the above was that, had councillors properly understood the GNSO Operating Procedures, the outcome of the vote would almost certainly have been different and the motion would have passed. 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. A. Re-open the motion in the same meeting OR B. Consider the same motion at a future meeting. In the event A above was not an option because it was procedurally questionable and all councillors were no longer present. Therefore the motion was resubmitted for consideration at the following meeting. This was to the concern of some who questioned the resubmission of a (failed) motion in exactly the same form. The question (as framed by Jeff) therefore arose i.e. Should there be any restrictions on resubmitting motions that previously appeared before the Council? If so, what should those restrictions be and are there any exceptions? I trust that this is helpful to you and your colleagues on the SCI. Jeff, please contribute as you see fit. Best wishes, Jonathan From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Sent: 07 January 2013 21:41 To: 'Jonathan Robinson' Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff' Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Dear Jonathan, Regarding my email below, we will be discussing this matter on our Wednesday call this week. If you have a chance to provide the background requested so that I can circulate that info prior that would be great; otherwise you can send it on later so that we can bring it back on to our agenda for next call. Please advise. Thank you. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff President RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10001 + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 10 _____ From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 12:20 PM To: 'Jonathan Robinson'; 'gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org' Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff' Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Dear all, First, allow me to wish everyone a healthy, happy and abundant 2013! Jonathan/Jeff: Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the SCI. To get all of the SCI members up to speed on what is being discussed, could you kindly provide us with some background information vis-à-vis what the specific motion was, and what caused it to come back to the Council in (as I understand it) virtually the same wording? That will be helpful for our discussion. Jeff: By way of this email, I am asking staff (pursuant to the SCI Charter) to add your email address to the discussion list until this matter has been fully explored and a recommendation has been sent back to Council. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. _____ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 5:50 AM To: KnobenW(a)telekom.de; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff' Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task All, Jeff Neuman raised a point on the GNSO Council list that the question being posed to the SCI should be a simpler one focussed on the general principle not the specific item that caused us to question the principle. I am in agreement with this. Therefore my suggestion is that the SCI focus on the essential question i.e. under what circumstances is it acceptable / permissible for a motion to be submitted to the GNSO Council when such a motion is identical to one that has been previously voted down by the Council. Jeff put it well and I am support of his formulation of the question as follows. The question should simply be "should there be any restrictions on resubmitting motions that previously appeared before the Council? If so, what should those restrictions be and are there any exceptions? Thank-you. Jonathan From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW(a)telekom.de Sent: 20 December 2012 18:08 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task All, from today's council call the task attached was shifted to the SCI. Looking forward to meeting you later Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

SCI meeting doodle poll - new date and time
by Julia Charvolen Jan. 2, 2013

Jan. 2, 2013

Dear All, In order to set a new regular date and time for the bi-weekly SCI calls, please confirm your availability with this doodle poll not ONLY for next week but in general. http://www.doodle.com/qkkuft4fyzz259ri Thank you very much, Best regards and happy new year, Julia Charvolen For GNSO Secretariat

2 1

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

Jan. 2, 2013

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

6 10

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

Dec. 20, 2012

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

1 0

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

Dec. 20, 2012

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

1 0

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

Dec. 19, 2012

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

1 0

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

Dec. 19, 2012

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

8 15