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

Action items: SCI Meeting 03 June
by Julie Hedlund June 11, 2014

June 11, 2014

Dear All, Please find below the action items from the call on 03 June. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/03+June+2014. Our next meeting is scheduled as a face-to-face meeting at the ICANN-50 meeting in London, England on Saturday, 21 June at 0730 local time. A separate meeting notice will be sent to the list and will include details concerning remote access. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director SCI Meeting Actions 03 June 1. Consensus Levels: The final language is approved. Action: Staff will run the language by ICANN Legal staff. The goal is to combine all changes to the Operating Procedures in one Public Comment Forum. 2. Waivers/Exceptions: amend final sentence. Options were discussed during the meeting as follows: Option A: "If these requirements are not met, the motion shall be considered timely submitted for the next GNSO Counci meeting, and shall be dealt with in accordance with the rules for motions in these Operating Procedures." Option B: "If these requirements are not met, the motion shall be considered timely submitted for the next GNSO Council meeting." Action: The Sub Group will come back with some revised language. 4. Remote/Electronic Voting: Continue discussion on proposed language. Action: Further discussion in London

2 3

MP3 recording of the SCI meeting - 03 June 2014
by Terri Agnew June 4, 2014

June 4, 2014

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Tuesday, 03 June 2014 at 19:00 UTC. <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20140603-en.mp3> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20140603-en.mp3 On page: <http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#oct> http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#june (transcripts and recording are found on the calendar page) Attendees: Ronald Andruff - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Primary - Chair Greg Shatan - IPC - Alternate Thomas Rickert - Nominating Committee Appointee - Alternate Wolf-Ulrich Knoben - ISPs and connectivity providers Constituency (ISPCP) - Primary Member Avri Doria - Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) - Primary Member Cintra Sooknanan (Vice-Chair) - Not-for-Profit Organizations Constituency - NPOC Constituency - Primary Member Anne Aikman Scalese - IPC - Primary Angie Graves - Business Constituency (BC) - Alternate Lori Schulman - SOI Apologies: Amr Elsadr - Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) - Primary Member ICANN Staff: Mary Wong Julie Hedlund Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew Adobe Chat Transcript 03 June 2014 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the SCI call on the 3rd of June 2014 Ron A:Good day all! Ron A:just waiting in the queue to come in on the call... Thomas Rickert 3:Hi all! Mary Wong:@Lori, do you have a Statement of Interest or an update to one? lori schulman:Hi Mary, I don't believe so. lori schulman:I am ramping up on everything. Mary Wong:OK - I'll send you the link/form. We need it, and your SG/C affiliation, per the GNSO WG Guidelines :) lori schulman:No problem. I will do all that is required. Mary Wong:Thanks so much! Ron A:@ Anne: Is there a reason you would like to see this go to Legal coincidentally with Pub Com? Ron A:As opposed to serially? Mary Wong:@Avri, that is what happens Anne Aikman-Scalese:just want to know whether we are seeking Legal input on all recommendations from scI as a matter of course Greg Shatan:It sounds more like a "red flag" process than an "input" process to me.... Mary Wong:On things like rules, procedures, published reports and policy recommendations etc.., that's the practice (not just SCI or GNSO). Mary Wong:@GReg, that's exactly right. Anne Aikman-Scalese:okay, thanks. dont think Legal should delay recommendations going to gnso Mary Wong:No, absolutely. Mary Wong:If necessary, we staff can be very pesky with our colleagues on behalf of the community :) Mary Wong:I thought Julie had abandoned us!!! :) :) Anne Aikman-Scalese:no need to be pesky If Legal has comments, they should send to GNSO directly and to us at the same time Ron A:@ Anne: I think we agree with the principle you are bringing up, however I see it as a quick 'sanity' check rather than a an ask for approval. Mary Wong:@Ron, as indeed it is! Greg Shatan:How about this revision to the end of the new language: "...shall be considered timely submitted for the next GNSO Council meeting.." Thomas Rickert 2:What about "as soon as practically possible"? Anne Aikman-Scalese:It would be better to say directly whether or not such a motion can be dealt with via e-mail voting. Greg Shatan:I disagree. The question of whether this or any other motion can be dealt with via e-mail voting. Greg Shatan:is irrelevan to this rule. Thomas Rickert 2:.shall be considered timely submitted for the next GNSO Council meeting and dealt with according to the rules applying to GNSO Council meeting Anne Aikman-Scalese:It could still be deferred when considered. Greg Shatan:@Avri -- how about my language above? Anne Aikman-Scalese:Re "parking", I thought we said all of these items are going out for public comment at the same time. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Language in minutes lookjs good. Cintra Sooknanan:I agree with Greg's analysis .... Avri Doria:i am afraid it will be used to block. Cintra Sooknanan:Avri would you prefer to change the shall to may? Avri Doria:pabncake? what does that have to do with nything? Greg Shatan:Exactly. It has nothing dto dowht anything.... Avri Doria:i accept Thomases langauge. I do not think it is redundnat. and ass i say as written it will be used to block an intermediate vote sooner or later. anyone who has done council knows that. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Greg, are you saying amend to say "shall be considered timely submitted for the next meeting" Greg Shatan:Yes. Avri Doria:i have been convinced that it is essential to change it. Greg Shatan:Thumbs up for Option B. Cintra Sooknanan:change it in what way? shall to may? Avri Doria:Cintra, that iis not enough. and that might even block what Greg wants. Cintra Sooknanan:ok Cintra Sooknanan:are you suggesting an option c? Greg Shatan:I don't think we should preclude e-voting for these motions. I just think it is not relevant here. Anne Aikman-Scalese:If it is not precluded, that should be more clear as in Option A draft language. Cintra Sooknanan:I think it is relevant, but I think it has been catered for Cintra Sooknanan:evoting... can only take place with the disucssion taking place on the mailing list etc Cintra Sooknanan:may= can be at the next meeting or otherwise lori schulman:I agree with Avri -- "may" appears to make the vote optional. Greg Shatan:I don't think Option B in any way precludes a request for evoting or a special meeting. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Greg is more of a purist than I am. He is legally quite correct but I think it wont be clear to non-lawyers. Greg Shatan:Meh. Ron A:Thank you on behalf of the non-lawyers Anne! ;o) Greg Shatan:@Avri -- it's treyfe! That's why it could not pass your lips. Cintra Sooknanan:sorry have connection problems Avri Doria:Greg: (: Ron A:Cintra:Can you add your thoughts via the chat? Anne Aikman-Scalese:Mary, is it always a motion? Anne Aikman-Scalese:Thanks Avri. Mary Wong:For COuncil voting? Yes I believe so - tho I will check re Greg's question about the Chair. Cintra Sooknanan:my issue is with the quorum Cintra Sooknanan:was there any mention on quorum on an email vote Cintra Sooknanan:is there automatic quorum? Cintra Sooknanan:I am scanning the text but maybe I am missing it Anne Aikman-Scalese:Check bylaws requirement for quorum per Cintra's comment! Mary Wong:There is a quorum requirement - think we tried to capture that in Section 5 Cintra Sooknanan:is it that as long as the email credentials are sent out the vote is assumed to be quorate Cintra Sooknanan:? Mary Wong:SEction 4.1 of the GNSO Op Proc, to be precise. Cintra Sooknanan:sorry for not speaking earlier very noisy here at the moment Ron A:All good Cintra. Cintra Sooknanan:my reason for declining approval was beacuse i think we need to beef up the quorum section here Cintra Sooknanan:thanks everyone... and to the subteam for their work on this... :) Anne Aikman-Scalese:Thanks everyone! Cintra Sooknanan:bye everyone, thanks Ron Thomas Rickert 2:bye all - cu in London! thanks Ron! Greg Shatan:2:30 am for remote lori schulman:thank you for my first meeting

1 0

Agenda and documents for meeting on Tuesday 3 June
by Mary Wong June 3, 2014

June 3, 2014

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next SCI meeting, which is scheduled for Tuesday 3 June: 1. Roll Call/Updates to SOI (3 minutes) 2. Confirm closing of consensus call for WG consensus levels (3 minutes) 3. Finalization of proposed language on Waivers/Exceptions, in preparation for formal consensus call (14 minutes) 4. Discussion of proposed language on Remote/Electronic Voting (35 minutes) 5. Next steps/next meeting (5 minutes) Attached are : (1) the final proposed language for Item #2 (WG consensus levels), which as you¹ll recall was sent out in a formal Consensus Call that began on 30 April; (2) two documents pertaining to Item #3, the language for which dates from 13 May and involves, first, waiver of the 10-day rule for Council motions and, secondly, further tweaking the approved Resubmission of a Motion language; and (3) for Item #4, a document containing draft language for Electronic Voting from the sub-group tasked with developing a proposal for this. We will update the SCI wiki page and have the documents available in the Adobe Connect room for the meeting. Thanks and cheers Mary

2 1

Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Agenda and documents for meeting on Tuesday 3 June
by Julie Hedlund June 2, 2014

June 2, 2014

Dear Mary and SCI members, The agenda and documents are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/03+June+2014. They also are posted in the Adobe Connect room at: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/standcommdraft/ Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, June 2, 2014 12:45 PM To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Agenda and documents for meeting on Tuesday 3 June > Dear all, > > Please find below the proposed agenda for the next SCI meeting, which is > scheduled for Tuesday 3 June: > > 1. Roll Call/Updates to SOI (3 minutes) > 2. Confirm closing of consensus call for WG consensus levels (3 minutes) > 3. Finalization of proposed language on Waivers/Exceptions, in preparation for > formal consensus call (14 minutes) > 4. Discussion of proposed language on Remote/Electronic Voting (35 minutes) > 5. Next steps/next meeting (5 minutes) > Attached are : > (1) the final proposed language for Item #2 (WG consensus levels), which as > you¹ll recall was sent out in a formal Consensus Call that began on 30 April; > (2) two documents pertaining to Item #3, the language for which dates from 13 > May and involves, first, waiver of the 10-day rule for Council motions and, > secondly, further tweaking the approved Resubmission of a Motion language; and > (3) for Item #4, a document containing draft language for Electronic Voting > from the sub-group tasked with developing a proposal for this. > > We will update the SCI wiki page and have the documents available in the Adobe > Connect room for the meeting. > > Thanks and cheers > Mary >

1 0

Updated language for Remote/Electronic Voting
by Mary Wong June 2, 2014

June 2, 2014

Dear all, Please find attached the proposed language from the sub-group that was tasked to develop a proposal in relation to electronic/remote voting (Avri, Anne and Thomas), for discussion at the meeting on Tuesday 3 June. Please note also that Thomas has not had a chance to review the final proposed language due to the fact that the last discussion for the sub group took place at a time when he was not available; nonetheless the sub-group as a whole felt it would be more efficient to send the proposed language to the full SCI at this time for further discussion. Thanks and cheers Mary

2 1

1. FINAL REQUEST - Consensus Call for WG Consensus Levels 2. Finalizing Waiver/Exception language
by Mary Wong May 27, 2014

May 27, 2014

Dear all, Please note two outstanding items at this time that require your attention. The first is the Consensus Call, first issued on 30 April and with a reminder sent on 19 May, on the SCI's recommendation regarding Working Group Consensus Levels. We have yet to hear back from the following SG/Cs Registries SG; Registrars SG; and the ISPCP constituency. Once again, if you¹ve responded on your group¹s behalf and I missed it, please accept my apologies and do let me know right away. Please let me know also if you need me to resend the proposal to you. ** If no objections or proposed changes to the last draft circulated on the dates mentioned above are received by Friday 30 May 2014, it will be presumed to have been accepted by Full Consensus of the SCI ** Secondly, please refer to Greg¹s email and attachment below for the second outstanding action item on the SCI¹s list, on Waivers/Exceptions to the GNSO Operating Procedures. Please circulate any questions, comments or suggestions you or your groups may have on the proposed language for further discussion pending next week¹s meeting and preparation for a Consensus Call on this particular item. Lastly, the sub group on Electronic/Remote Voting will continue its work on a draft proposal for submission to the full SCI for discussion soon. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org * One World. One Internet. * From: <Shatan>, "Gregory S." <GShatan(a)reedsmith.com> Date: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 at 4:07 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) > All: > > Based on today¹s call and discussion on the email list, I am circulating the > latest version of the Proposed Language for Waiver/Exceptions to the 10-day > Motion Deadline. The Proposed Language is in italics in the attached > documents. New language responding to comments by Anne Aikman-Scalese on the > list has been added (in track changes). > > Also, in this version, I have removed language recently suggested to clarify > that ³resubmitted motions² are also eligible for the waiver. This language > had been suggested due to a parenthetical clause in Section 4.3.3, which made > it seem as if resubmitted motions would not be eligible for the waiver. > Instead, I have proposed that the clause in 4.3.3. be removed. A revised > version of Section 4.3.3 is also attached. It was the sense of those on the > call that we should get to the root of the ambiguity, even though it meant > that the new language in 4.3.3. would also need to be part of the public > comment process. > > I look forward to any thoughts and comments you may have. > > Best regards, > > Greg Shatan > > Gregory S. Shatan > Partner > IP | Technology | Media > ReedSmithLLP > The business of relationships > 599 Lexington Avenue > New York, NY 10022 > 212.549.0275 | Phone > 917.816.6428 | Mobile > 212.521.5450 | Fax > gshatan(a)reedsmith.com > www.reedsmith.com > > > > > > > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong > Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 2:56 PM > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org > Subject: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to > GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) > > > Dear SCI members, > > > > Please find attached the latest version of the proposed language relating to > Waivers/Exceptions for motions in the GNSO Operating Procedures. As noted in > last week¹s call, the Consensus Call for this issue will be conducted via this > email list. > > > > Note, however, that we are suggesting a slight change to the language > circulated by Greg and discussed in the email thread below. In reviewing the > proposed language prior to circulation for a Consensus Call, we noted that the > suggested Explanation in Greg¹s latest email (below) would entail a further > change to the revised Resubmission of a Motion language in the GNSO Operating > Procedures, which initial revisions were approved by the GNSO Council (see > http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201403 > <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201403> ). As any further > changes will have to be published for public comment, an alternative solution > might be to add a sentence to the proposed Waivers/Exception language to > address the concern voiced by Amr in an earlier email. > > > > Please indicate whether you, on behalf of your respective stakeholder groups > and/or constituencies, support or do not support the attached proposed > language. If in light of this email note you wish to discuss the issue further > prior to concluding the Consensus Call, please indicate this as well. > > > > Thank you all! A second email relating to a Consensus Call for the separate > issue of language relating to Working Group Consensus Levels will follow > shortly. > > > > Cheers > > Mary > > > > Mary Wong > > Senior Policy Director > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) > > Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 > > Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> > > > > * One World. One Internet. * > > > > From: Ron Andruff <randruff(a)rnapartners.com <mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com> > > > Date: Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 6:13 PM > To: "'Shatan, Gregory S.'" <GShatan(a)reedsmith.com > <mailto:GShatan@reedsmith.com> >, 'Amr Elsadr' <aelsadr(a)egyptig.org > <mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org> > > Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.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] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating > Procedures: Revised Draft > > >> >> Thanks Greg and Amr. This looks like a good solution to me as well. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> RA >> >> >> Ron Andruff >> RNA Partners >> www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> >> >> >> From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@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 Shatan, Gregory >> S. >> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 20:51 >> To: 'Amr Elsadr' >> Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org >> <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating >> Procedures: Revised Draft >> >> I think the solution to this problem is to revise the language quoted below >> and keep the waiver section as is. >> >> For example: >> >> ³1. Explanation: The Councilor submitting the motion must also submit an >> explanation for the resubmission of the motion. The explanation need not >> accompany the motion when it is resubmitted; however, the explanation must be >> submitted no later than the deadline for submitting the motion (i.e., no >> later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day 10 calendar days >> before the Council meeting at which the motion is to be reconsidered, unless >> the requirements for late submission in Section 3.3.2 are also met). The >> explanation does not need to meet any requirements other than being submitted >> in a timely manner.² >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Greg >> >> >> From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org> ] >> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 4:53 PM >> To: Shatan, Gregory S. >> Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org >> <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating >> Procedures: Revised Draft >> >> >> Hi Greg and all, >> >> >> >> I know I¹ve brought this up repetitively and I hate being a nag, but there¹s >> still an inconvenient loophole in this text regarding resubmission of >> motions. On its meeting of March 26th, 2014, the GNSO Council approved the >> SCI recommendation to amend the GNSO Operating Procedures by adding sections >> 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 detailing the guidelines of motions being resubmitted. >> Section 4.3.3, claus number 1 reads as follows: >> >> >>> >>> ³1. Explanation: The Councilor submitting the motion must also submit an >>> explanation for the resubmission of the motion. The explanation need not >>> accompany the motion when it is resubmitted; however, the explanation must >>> be submitted no later than the deadline for submitting the motion (i.e., no >>> later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day 10 calendar >>> days before the Council meeting at which the motion is to be reconsidered). >>> The explanation does not need to meet any requirements other than being >>> submitted in a timely manner.² >> >> >> >> If the SCI determines that it would like the 10-day rule waiver to also apply >> to motions being resubmitted (and not exclusively to motions being submitted >> for the first time) in its recommendation to the Council, then there needs to >> be clarifying text to that effect. If the SCI does not recommend that the >> waiver should apply to resubmitted motions, then no further action is >> necessary. If the former is true, and not the latter, the the way I read it, >> the required clarification should either be added as a fourth bullet to 3.3.2 >> referencing 4.3.3, or perhaps an added numbered item to 4.3.4 (Limitations >> and Exceptions to Resubmission of a Motion) referring to the waiver rule in >> 3.3.2. Without these changes, I can¹t see how the text of the operating >> procedures will support the waiver rule being applied to resubmitted motions >> in the event that the need arises. >> >> >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> Amr >> >> >> On Apr 22, 2014, at 9:53 PM, Shatan, Gregory S. <GShatan(a)reedsmith.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> As discussed today on the SCI call, I agree with Marika¹s comment below, and >> I have deleted the sentence in question. In the attached draft, I have >> accepted all the changes from the prior draft and then deleted that sentence. >> There were no other comments on the list or on the call. >> >> >> >> I would suggest that this draft should be considered final (subject only to >> ³accepting² the deletion of the sentence so that this is a clean document) >> for purposes of moving to the next step with this amendment to the Operating >> Procedures. >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> Gregory S. Shatan >> Partner >> Reed Smith LLP >> 599 Lexington Avenue >> New York, NY 10022 >> 212.549.0275 (Phone) >> 917.816.6428 (Mobile) >> 212.521.5450 (Fax) >> gshatan(a)reedsmith.com <mailto:gshatan@reedsmith.com> >> www.reedsmith.com <http://www.reedsmith.com/> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org >> <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> ] >> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:34 AM >> To: Shatan, Gregory S.; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org >> <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating >> Procedures: Revised Draft >> >> >> >> Thanks, Greg. I'm still not clear to why it would say 'For the avoidance of >> doubt, if the requirements above are not met, the motion shall not be >> considered ³submitted²? Why can't it be considered submitted, but just not >> eligible to be considered for a vote at the meeting? The current practice is >> also that if a motion is submitted after the deadline it may get discussed, >> just not voted on during the meeting, but there is no need to resubmit it for >> the next meeting as it is already considered submitted and automatically >> carried over. Maybe I'm missing something? >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Marika >> >> >> >> From: <Shatan>, "Gregory S." <GShatan(a)reedsmith.com >> <mailto:GShatan@reedsmith.com> > >> Date: Thursday 17 April 2014 03:40 >> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> >> " <gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> > >> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating >> Procedures: Revised Draft >> >> >> >> All: >> >> >> >> Following up on our last meeting, I attach a revised version of the amendment >> to the Operating Procedures dealing with ³late² submission of a motion, with >> my revisions marked in ³track changes.² >> >> >> >> I look forward to your comments. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> Gregory S. Shatan >> Deputy Chair | Tech Transactions Group >> IP | Technology | Media >> ReedSmithLLP >> The business of relationships >> 599 Lexington Avenue >> New York, NY 10022 >> 212.549.0275 | Phone >> 917.816.6428 | Mobile >> 212.521.5450 | Fax >> gshatan(a)reedsmith.com <mailto:gshatan@reedsmith.com> >> www.reedsmith.com <http://www.reedsmith.com/> >> >> >> >> >> * * * >> >> This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may >> well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on >> notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then >> delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any >> purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your >> cooperation. >> * * * >> >> To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you >> that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice >> contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended >> or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding >> penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local >> provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any >> tax-related matters addressed herein. >> Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00 >> <Motion waiver draft language - 22 April 2014.DOC> >>

1 0

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

May 20, 2014

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

4 6

MP3 recording of the SCI meeting - 13 May 2014
by Terri Agnew May 13, 2014

May 13, 2014

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 19:00 UTC. <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20140513-en.mp3> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20140513-en.mp3 On page: <http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#oct> http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#may (transcripts and recording are found on the calendar page) Attendees: Ronald Andruff - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Primary - Chair Greg Shatan - IPC - Alternate Thomas Rickert - Nominating Committee Appointee - Alternate Wolf-Ulrich Knoben - ISPs and connectivity providers Constituency (ISPCP) - Primary Member Avri Doria - Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) - Primary Member Jennifer Standiford - Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) - Primary Member Cintra Sooknanan (Vice-Chair) - Not-for-Profit Organizations Constituency - NPOC Constituency - Primary Member Apologies: Anne Aikman Scalese - IPC - Primary Osvaldo Novoa - ISPs and connectivity providers Constituency (ISPCP) - Alternate ICANN Staff: Mary Wong Julie Hedlund Glen de Saint Gery Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew Adobe Chat Transcript 13 May 2014 Terri Agnew:Dear all, welcome to the SCI meeting on the 13th of May 2014 at 19:00 UTC Ron A:Hi all. Just dialing in now. Wolf-Ulrich:same to me Greg Shatan:I am in.... Julie Hedlund:@Ron: We are missing the Registrar and Registry SGs. Julie Hedlund:Note a correction to my last statement: Jennifer Standiford has joined the call from the Registrar SG. Ron A:Thanks Julie. Welcome Jennifer. Jennifer Standiford:hello Terri Agnew:Jennifer I have added you to attendance Jennifer Standiford:Thank you Terri Avri Doria:i do not undersran d why this is necessary. Avri Doria:as submitted motions are motions and thus subject to the rule as it stands. Terri Agnew:Cintra Sooknanan has joined Avri Doria:it is not necessary. a resubmitted morion is a motion Avri Doria:a motion is a motion Mary Wong:Perhaps a simpler clarifying sentence to say this Section can also apply to motions Resubmitted under 4.3.3? Avri Doria:so insteqd of fessing up to amistke, which i dont think it was, we put complicated lanauge in another section? Avri Doria:but once the submission rules are ammended, that ammendment applies to all submissions. Avri Doria:it wouldbe done in the context of waiver changes. Avri Doria:let me reread the offending sesubmission langauge. just need to find the full text url. Mary Wong:@Avri, here it is: "Explanation: The Councilor submitting the motion must also submit an explanation for the resubmission of the motion. The explanation need not accompany the motion when it is resubmitted; however, the explanation must be submitted no later than the deadline for submitting the motion (i.e., no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day 10 calendar days before the Council meeting at which the motion is to be reconsidered). The explanation does not need to meet any requirements other than being submitted in a timely manner." Mary Wong:Thanks, Greg. Avri Doria:i would prefer to see the pranthetical removed Cintra Sooknanan:how long does the asynchronous vote stay open? Cintra Sooknanan:before the vote/poll is closed Avri Doria:we called it voting outdide of a meeting. Avri Doria:Cintra, that would be a technical issue we did not predetemrined. Cintra Sooknanan:sorry that term just stuck :) Mary Wong:@Avri, it's in Section 4 of this draft. Cintra Sooknanan:important not to prejudice voters in different time zones Mary Wong:Suggest 72 hours (to match absentee voting)? Avri Doria:discussion at this point. Cintra Sooknanan:i like mary's suggestion for 72 hrs Ron A:I like matching an existing policy as well, re 72 hours. Mary Wong:Can also go a step further, to fully match the Absentee Voting timelines, allow shortening to 24 hours or expanding to 7 calendar days at Council leadership's discretion and/or in exceptional circumstances. Avri Doria:point 1 gives cases, as examples Cintra Sooknanan:question: would the topic under vote be allowed to continue to be discussed during the voting period? or will the discussion be brought to a close prior to the vote announcement? Avri Doria:don't see why people would ever need to stop talking. Cintra Sooknanan:technically could 'prejudice' the vote and also not the same rule as meeting vote Mary Wong:Sorry - my cursor took on a mind of its own for a second there! Avri Doria:well, we certainly talk in chats rooms while the vote is going on. i bet there is also talking on the AC during votes. Cintra Sooknanan:hrmm...fair point. Cintra Sooknanan:Avri is the vote contemplated by the subgroup to be a one off vote or are voters allowed to change their vote during the voting period? Mary Wong:I believe current absentee voting only allows a Councilor one shot at one vote so that will not change, I think. Cintra Sooknanan:ok thanks Mary Julie Hedlund:@Mary: It was sent to the list on 30 April. Julie Hedlund:Anne Aikman-Scalese said on the list that the IPC supports the language on 06 May. Mary Wong:@Ron, I absolutely didn't mean to come across as chastising you :) Julie Hedlund:On 07 May Amr Elsader said that the NCUC supports it. Ron A:No issues Mary. We all need to do our parts. Cintra Sooknanan:agree with Greg... there needs to be a holistic review Julie Hedlund:Apologies everyone -- I have to drop off to lead an SSAC call. Cintra Sooknanan:the issues were raised in our drafts, Cintra Sooknanan:we had to make a uturn based on objections on the call Thomas Rickert:Thanks Ron, Thanks all! Bye! Thomas Cintra Sooknanan:bye everyoen

1 0

Action items: SCI Meeting 13 May
by Julie Hedlund May 13, 2014

May 13, 2014

Dear All, Please find below the action items from the call on 13 May. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/13+May+2014. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director SCI Meeting 13 May 1. Consensus Language in GNSO Working Group Guidelines (consensus call) -- On list Consensus Call. 2. Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures (consensus call; sub team: Greg) -- Greg will submit revised draft language for consideration (DONE). 3. Voting by Email: (sub team: Anne, Avri, Thomas) -- The subteam will submit draft language for consideration.

2 1

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

May 13, 2014

Dear SCI members, Please find attached the latest version of the proposed language relating to Waivers/Exceptions for motions in the GNSO Operating Procedures. As noted in last week¹s call, the Consensus Call for this issue will be conducted via this email list. Note, however, that we are suggesting a slight change to the language circulated by Greg and discussed in the email thread below. In reviewing the proposed language prior to circulation for a Consensus Call, we noted that the suggested Explanation in Greg¹s latest email (below) would entail a further change to the revised Resubmission of a Motion language in the GNSO Operating Procedures, which initial revisions were approved by the GNSO Council (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201403) As any further changes will have to be published for public comment, an alternative solution might be to add a sentence to the proposed Waivers/Exception language to address the concern voiced by Amr in an earlier email. Please indicate whether you, on behalf of your respective stakeholder groups and/or constituencies, support or do not support the attached proposed language. If in light of this email note you wish to discuss the issue further prior to concluding the Consensus Call, please indicate this as well. Thank you all! A second email relating to a Consensus Call for the separate issue of language relating to Working Group Consensus Levels will follow shortly. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org * One World. One Internet. * From: Ron Andruff <randruff(a)rnapartners.com> Date: Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 6:13 PM To: "'Shatan, Gregory S.'" <GShatan(a)reedsmith.com>, 'Amr Elsadr' <aelsadr(a)egyptig.org> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft > Thanks Greg and Amr. This looks like a good solution to me as well. > > Kind regards, > > RA > > > Ron Andruff > RNA Partners > www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> > > > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Shatan, Gregory S. > Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 20:51 > To: 'Amr Elsadr' > Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating > Procedures: Revised Draft > > I think the solution to this problem is to revise the language quoted below > and keep the waiver section as is. > > For example: > > ³1. Explanation: The Councilor submitting the motion must also submit an > explanation for the resubmission of the motion. The explanation need not > accompany the motion when it is resubmitted; however, the explanation must be > submitted no later than the deadline for submitting the motion (i.e., no later > than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day 10 calendar days before > the Council meeting at which the motion is to be reconsidered, unless the > requirements for late submission in Section 3.3.2 are also met). The > explanation does not need to meet any requirements other than being submitted > in a timely manner.² > > Thoughts? > > Greg > > > From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org] > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 4:53 PM > To: Shatan, Gregory S. > Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating > Procedures: Revised Draft > > > Hi Greg and all, > > > > I know I¹ve brought this up repetitively and I hate being a nag, but there¹s > still an inconvenient loophole in this text regarding resubmission of motions. > On its meeting of March 26th, 2014, the GNSO Council approved the SCI > recommendation to amend the GNSO Operating Procedures by adding sections 4.3.3 > and 4.3.4 detailing the guidelines of motions being resubmitted. Section > 4.3.3, claus number 1 reads as follows: > > >> >> ³1. Explanation: The Councilor submitting the motion must also submit an >> explanation for the resubmission of the motion. The explanation need not >> accompany the motion when it is resubmitted; however, the explanation must be >> submitted no later than the deadline for submitting the motion (i.e., no >> later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day 10 calendar days >> before the Council meeting at which the motion is to be reconsidered). The >> explanation does not need to meet any requirements other than being submitted >> in a timely manner.² > > > > If the SCI determines that it would like the 10-day rule waiver to also apply > to motions being resubmitted (and not exclusively to motions being submitted > for the first time) in its recommendation to the Council, then there needs to > be clarifying text to that effect. If the SCI does not recommend that the > waiver should apply to resubmitted motions, then no further action is > necessary. If the former is true, and not the latter, the the way I read it, > the required clarification should either be added as a fourth bullet to 3.3.2 > referencing 4.3.3, or perhaps an added numbered item to 4.3.4 (Limitations and > Exceptions to Resubmission of a Motion) referring to the waiver rule in 3.3.2. > Without these changes, I can¹t see how the text of the operating procedures > will support the waiver rule being applied to resubmitted motions in the event > that the need arises. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Amr > > > On Apr 22, 2014, at 9:53 PM, Shatan, Gregory S. <GShatan(a)reedsmith.com> wrote: > > > As discussed today on the SCI call, I agree with Marika¹s comment below, and I > have deleted the sentence in question. In the attached draft, I have accepted > all the changes from the prior draft and then deleted that sentence. There > were no other comments on the list or on the call. > > > > I would suggest that this draft should be considered final (subject only to > ³accepting² the deletion of the sentence so that this is a clean document) for > purposes of moving to the next step with this amendment to the Operating > Procedures. > > > Best regards, > > > > Greg > > > > Gregory S. Shatan > Partner > Reed Smith LLP > 599 Lexington Avenue > New York, NY 10022 > 212.549.0275 (Phone) > 917.816.6428 (Mobile) > 212.521.5450 (Fax) > gshatan(a)reedsmith.com <mailto:gshatan@reedsmith.com> > www.reedsmith.com <http://www.reedsmith.com/> > > > > > > > > From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:34 AM > To: Shatan, Gregory S.; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating > Procedures: Revised Draft > > > > Thanks, Greg. I'm still not clear to why it would say 'For the avoidance of > doubt, if the requirements above are not met, the motion shall not be > considered ³submitted²? Why can't it be considered submitted, but just not > eligible to be considered for a vote at the meeting? The current practice is > also that if a motion is submitted after the deadline it may get discussed, > just not voted on during the meeting, but there is no need to resubmit it for > the next meeting as it is already considered submitted and automatically > carried over. Maybe I'm missing something? > > > > Best regards, > > > > Marika > > > > From: <Shatan>, "Gregory S." <GShatan(a)reedsmith.com > <mailto:GShatan@reedsmith.com> > > Date: Thursday 17 April 2014 03:40 > To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> > " <gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> > > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating > Procedures: Revised Draft > > > > All: > > > > Following up on our last meeting, I attach a revised version of the amendment > to the Operating Procedures dealing with ³late² submission of a motion, with > my revisions marked in ³track changes.² > > > > I look forward to your comments. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Greg > > > > Gregory S. Shatan > Deputy Chair | Tech Transactions Group > IP | Technology | Media > ReedSmithLLP > The business of relationships > 599 Lexington Avenue > New York, NY 10022 > 212.549.0275 | Phone > 917.816.6428 | Mobile > 212.521.5450 | Fax > gshatan(a)reedsmith.com <mailto:gshatan@reedsmith.com> > www.reedsmith.com <http://www.reedsmith.com/> > > > > > * * * > > This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may > well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on > notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then > delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any > purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your > cooperation. > * * * > > To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, > unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained > in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written > to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties > under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or > (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related > matters addressed herein. > Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00 > <Motion waiver draft language - 22 April 2014.DOC> >

6 14