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

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

Dec. 19, 2012

Dear SCI members, As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a clarification to the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. Please review the revised following text with the change in bold all caps: "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." For reference, I have included the entire section below so that the footnote may be viewed in context. It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is accepted by the SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if the SCI decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of Wednesday, 12 December.** With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of termination orsuspension. The following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a premature termination or suspension of a PDP: 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and resources being dedicated to the PDP; 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the initiation of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; or warranting a suspension; or 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack of volunteer participation. If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its termination, the Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). ________________________________ [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension.

9 33

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

Dec. 18, 2012

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

1 0

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

Dec. 14, 2012

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

4 8

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

Dec. 14, 2012

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

6 6

SCI chair election
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Dec. 13, 2012

Dec. 13, 2012

All, today at 23:59 UTC the election period for the new SCI chair is ending. I hope all of you could take part in the election. I suggest to hand over officially at the beginning of the next SCI meeting on 20 December. The same day shall be a council meeting, and I'll inform the council about the change. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

AW: Draft motion
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Dec. 13, 2012

Dec. 13, 2012

All, the excerpt of the PDP manual modified to address suspension of a PDP is attached. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich _____________________________________________ Von: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2012 23:13 An: council(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Betreff: Draft motion All, I herewith submit the following << Motion to Adopt Revised PDP Manual Incorporating Modifications to Include the Suspension of a PDP Made by: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Seconded by: WHEREAS: Having encountered the need to suspend a Policy Development Process (PDP) for a limited amount of time, the GNSO Council realized that currently the PDP Manual does not contain a specific provision on how to deal with such a situation; The GNSO Council requested the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) in April 2012 to review whether there should be a modification to the GNSO PDP Manual to address the possible suspension of a PDP following its initiation; The SCI deliberated on provisions for suspension of a PDP and reached consensus on proposed modifications to be incorporated in Section 15 of the GNSO PDP Manual, which also is included as Annex 2 in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures; The revised PDP manual, including the proposed provisions for suspension of a PDP, was put out for a minimum 21-day public comment period on 22 October 2012 and a 21-day reply comment period ending on 03 December (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gnso-pdp-manual-22oct12-en.htm) as required by the ICANN Bylaws; The SCI determined that the result of the public comment period required no further changes , but in order to clarify the definition of a suspension the SCI amended the footnote to include the word "stated" and to delete the words "until further notice" as illustrated in the redlined section at INSERT LINK; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED The GNSO Council adopts the revised PDP Manual including the providing for the suspension of a PDP (see INSERT LINK TO REVISED GNSO COUNCIL OPERATING PROCEDURES). The GNSO Council instructs ICANN staff to post the new version of the PDP Manual and to include it as a revised Annex 2 in the GNSO Operating Procedures, effective immediately upon adoption. >> An excerpt of the PDP manual modified to address suspension of a PDP is attached. The SCI agreed to submit this motion although an issue which came up after the reply comment period is still being discussed but nevertheless expected to be solved in advance to the council meeting. Still under discussion is the footnote 1 in para 15 of the modified PDP manual. In the less likely case of no consensus the motion and agenda item shall be withdrawn. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

Draft motion
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Dec. 12, 2012

Dec. 12, 2012

All, I herewith submit the following << Motion to Adopt Revised PDP Manual Incorporating Modifications to Include the Suspension of a PDP Made by: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Seconded by: WHEREAS: Having encountered the need to suspend a Policy Development Process (PDP) for a limited amount of time, the GNSO Council realized that currently the PDP Manual does not contain a specific provision on how to deal with such a situation; The GNSO Council requested the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) in April 2012 to review whether there should be a modification to the GNSO PDP Manual to address the possible suspension of a PDP following its initiation; The SCI deliberated on provisions for suspension of a PDP and reached consensus on proposed modifications to be incorporated in Section 15 of the GNSO PDP Manual, which also is included as Annex 2 in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures; The revised PDP manual, including the proposed provisions for suspension of a PDP, was put out for a minimum 21-day public comment period on 22 October 2012 and a 21-day reply comment period ending on 03 December (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gnso-pdp-manual-22oct12-en.htm) as required by the ICANN Bylaws; The SCI determined that the result of the public comment period required no further changes , but in order to clarify the definition of a suspension the SCI amended the footnote to include the word "stated" and to delete the words "until further notice" as illustrated in the redlined section at INSERT LINK; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED The GNSO Council adopts the revised PDP Manual including the providing for the suspension of a PDP (see INSERT LINK TO REVISED GNSO COUNCIL OPERATING PROCEDURES). The GNSO Council instructs ICANN staff to post the new version of the PDP Manual and to include it as a revised Annex 2 in the GNSO Operating Procedures, effective immediately upon adoption. >> An excerpt of the PDP manual modified to address suspension of a PDP is attached. The SCI agreed to submit this motion although an issue which came up after the reply comment period is still being discussed but nevertheless expected to be solved in advance to the council meeting. Still under discussion is the footnote 1 in para 15 of the modified PDP manual. In the less likely case of no consensus the motion and agenda item shall be withdrawn. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

Report on SCI achievements
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Dec. 12, 2012

Dec. 12, 2012

All, on behalf of the Standing Committee of Improvements Implementation (SCI) I herewith like to provide the GNSO council with the following achievements. It is at the discretion of the council to deal with it accordingly. Deferral of Motions: The SCI was asked by the council to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date in those situations where a formal process for a deferral is not specifically provided (for example, certain deferrals are foreseen as part of the GNSO PDP, see http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16dec11-en.pdf) The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative or the negative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situation that may occur with regard to this informal practice. Raising an Issue: The SCI was asked to consider who can raise an issue for SCI consideration. After deliberating on this matter, the SCI agreed to maintain the status quo according to the Charter of the SCI. This means only the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council can request an item to be reviewed by the SCI. However, the GNSO Council could possibly consider communicating to other SO/ACs / individuals, that if there are issues they would like to see reviewed by the SCI they will need to channel these via the GNSO Council and/or a group chartered by the GNSO Council. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben SCI Chair

1 0

SCI membership
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Dec. 9, 2012

Dec. 9, 2012

All, you recall that all three Nominating Committee Appointees to the GNSO council (NCA) have expressed interest in following Carlos Aguirre as SCI member. They have decided that Jennifer Wolfe shall be the primary and Thomas Rickert the alternate member. I herewith welcome both to the Committee. Glen, please add Jen and Thomas to the mailing list and provide them with a ballot for the ongoing chair election. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

2 1

Actions re: Deferral of Motions & Raising an Issue
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 7, 2012

Dec. 7, 2012

Dear Wolf-Ulrich, As noted today, you have the action to notify the GNSO Council of the results of the discussions by the SCI on Deferral of Motions and Raising an Issue. To assist you with this action, I've included below the language that was agreed to by the SCI for responses to the Council. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Deferral of Motions: (Response language that was accepted by the SCI, including J. Scott's proposed changes.) The SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date in those situations where a formal process for a deferral is not specifically provided (for example, certain deferrals are foreseen as part of the GNSO PDP, see http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16dec11-en.pdf) The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative or the negative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situation that may occur with regard to this informal practice. Raising an Issue: (Incorporates response language from the SCI.) The SCI was asked to consider who can raise an issue for SCI consideration. After deliberating on this matter, the SCI agreed to maintain the status quo according to the Charter of the SCI. This means only the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council can request an item to be reviewed by the SCI. However, the GNSO Council could possibly consider communicating to other SO/ACs / individuals, that if there are issues they would like to see reviewed by the SCI they will need to channel these via the GNSO Council and/or a group chartered by the GNSO Council.

2 1