I note that Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC primary rep to the SCI) sent apologies for this call to a subgroup of the SCI, but did not send it to the full group. I'm forwarding it to the full group for the record. Greg Gregory S. Shatan Partner Reed Smith LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212.549.0275 (Phone) 917.816.6428 (Mobile) 212.521.5450 (Fax) gshatan@reedsmith.com www.reedsmith.com -----Original Message----- From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com] Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 12:41 PM To: 'Mary Wong'; Avri Doria; 'Thomas Rickert' Cc: 'Ron Andruff'; Shatan, Gregory S. Subject: RE: Call to facilitate finalization of email voting proposal for SCI? Mary, Can you please set up a call? I am presenting Continuing Legal Education to the Arizona State Bar tomorrow and unfortunately will have to miss SCI again - I hope Greg will be on the line. I know Avri wants to work collaboratively online somehow. I think she mentioned this works even better if all are on a call and to me that makes the most sense. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | Suite 700 One South Church Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com -----Original Message----- From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org] Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 11:36 AM To: Avri Doria; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert' Subject: Re: Call to facilitate finalization of email voting proposal for SCI? Thanks, Avri. I believe that ICANN is working on increasing and improving collaboration tools in conjunction with the new website rollout and related projects, so hopefully for policy development work we'll have some better tools at our disposal soon. Please let me know how I can assist you all with finalizing this document and task. Thanks much for picking this up! Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org * One World. One Internet. * -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Date: Friday, April 18, 2014 12:24 PM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrlaw.com>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Subject: Re: Call to facilitate finalization of email voting proposal for SCI?
Hi,
Since I only get to in fragmentary moments between other activities, I am doing my editing on google drive:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1J6jFx45SeWW5DKkxG0j8JT3dt1l3P6aDwvm JNf 6jbcw/edit?usp=sharing
I have set it up so anyone with the URL can read and comment.
You all have not added any editors, because I got the impression some would prefer not to be included.
Once I finish my edit pass, I will export a doc file containing my comments and any edits I propose.
If you want to be added to the editing list, please let me know and I will add you. Tell me what address you want me to use.
cheers
avri
On 17-Apr-14 10:28, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
The problem with the ICANN wiki is that is is just as static as passing document back and forth.
My experience is actually that I find the collaborative editing environment much more of a sharing envrionemnt. Especially when using them while on a phone call or in person.
I wish ICANN offered such active collaborative editing tools.
As for security, what we are doing is not something that needs to be secret, in fact it should optimally be visible to anyone in the world that wants to see it. Or even comment. Google drive allows that.
avri
On 17-Apr-14 10:21, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
Avri, Lots of folks have expressed concern over security issues in those workspaces. Is there some reason we can't work with ICANN tools and email? Separately, none of that stuff is, from my point of view, as collaborative as a phone call, which is of course not as collaborative as a live meeting, but alas! Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | Suite 700 One South Church Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com
-----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 7:10 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert' Cc: Mary Wong Subject: Re: Call to facilitate finalization of email voting proposal for SCI?
Hi,
Ok with me. However, I will be absorbed in the WGEC the week after. But this is less intense so should be able to find a time early in the morning or late in the evening UTC.
I still strongly support the idea of finding a way to do online collaborative work. I the meantime I will try to take an edit pass through the document. Might even do it in Google drive, we can always export word docs from that if needed.
avri
Ps I know it is disgraceful for a non commercial type to be so hooked on a commercial product. It is just such a good tool and good tool trumps all NC-C prejudice.
On 17-Apr-14 09:59, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
Let's just schedule the call for after the NetMundial meeting. Thanks, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | Suite 700 One South Church Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 3:46 AM To: Avri Doria Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Mary Wong Subject: Re: Call to facilitate finalization of email voting proposal for SCI?
Hi all, I could offer today for a call. Friday and Monday are difficult for me as I am quite hooked up with private matters (both are public holidays in Germany - Good Friday and Easter). I can do online collaboration, though.
Best, Thomas
Am 17.04.2014 um 11:55 schrieb Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>:
Hi,
I am flying off to NetMundial on Sunday so can't do it after that.
Can we put it on google drive or another pad and do online collaborative work?
avri
On 16-Apr-14 19:30, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
Mary, Monday would be doable for an initial discussion. I am out of the office Friday but have a very clear day on Monday.
Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | Suite 700 One South Church Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com -----Original Message----- From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 4:18 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert Subject: Call to facilitate finalization of email voting proposal for SCI?
Dear Anne, Avri and Thomas,
As suggested by Anne in her email (below), I am writing to ask if you would like staff to assist with scheduling a call among you to discuss the email voting issue. As the next SCI meeting is next Tuesday, I recognize that time may be an issue but nonetheless, it may be that you would like to at least do a quick call before then. You may wish, for example, to discuss the draft circulated by Anne last Tuesday and possibly also set a tentative date for completion of the proposal.
If so, would any time on Friday or Monday suit? Please let me know and I will go ahead and schedule the call.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
* One World. One Internet. *
-----Original Message----- From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Date: Tuesday, April 8, 2014 1:24 PM To: "'Shatan, Gregory S.'" <GShatan@reedsmith.com>, 'Amr Elsadr' <aelsadr@egyptig.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: "<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO WG Definitions of Decision-Making Levels
> Thanks Greg. I think this is a helpful observation. > Regarding "day job", regrettably mine conflicts for today's SCI > call . > > Regarding the e-mail voting issues, I had circulated in January > a redline with questions about that process. It is attached > again, although it may be impacted by some suggestions that were > made regarding the 10 day waiver recommendation. In this > regard, my comment is that e-mail voting is not appropriate for > unanimous consent to waive the > 10 day rule since it does not seem to me that it could meet the > litmus test of "participation in full discussion" that applies > to e-mail voting. > > With respect to both the consensus levels and the waiver of the > ten day rule, whatever is determined in today's call will have > to be taken back to IPC for formal input. > > I also think, as I said at the end of the Singapore meeting, > that Thomas, Avri, and I need to schedule a separate call on the > e-mail voting issue as a subgroup. Perhaps we could ask staff > to assist in scheduling the call? > > Very sorry I cannot participate today but I must attend a > meeting of all lawyers in my firm's Tucson office occurring at > the same hour. Thank you, Anne > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | > Suite 700 One South Church Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com | > www.LRRLaw.com -----Original Message----- From: > owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of > Shatan, Gregory S. Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 8:23 AM To: > 'Amr Elsadr'; Marika Konings Cc: > <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: RE: > [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO WG Definitions of Decision-Making > Levels > > > I've been giving this some thought (which unfortunately I kept > to myself). There are really 2 problems here. > > 1. Dealing with the "consensus against" problem. This is our > explicit assignment. 2. The Decision-Making Levels are not > well-drafted in certain places. There is inconsistent use of > language (different words used to mean the same thing), > inconsistent use of "unstated phrases" (leaving out the same or > similar phrase when reiterating a point) creating ambiguity, > etc. > > We are trying to solve both problems at the same time. We > started down this road because the fix needs to change all of > the levels (except perhaps Divergence). Then, slowly (as we > became more comfortable with the document), we started to see > the list's infirmities and tried to resolve them. In my day > job, I call this "drafting creep." The problem with drafting > creep is that it opens up issues beyond the one you were fixing, > and intertwines those two sets of issues in a way that > complicates review by others. This is what Marika is seeing. > > I think we need to reverse course for the moment. I think both > (1) and (2) above are problems that need to be addressed. But > only (1) is really on our plate. > > I'll make the moderately radical suggestion that we keep our > hands off the current levels (in spite of their issues) and > address the "consensus against" issue (which does affect all the > levels) in a footnote (Amr's alternative 3, below). > > At some later time, we can then follow up and improve the > drafting of the levels, separate from dealing with the > "consensus against" issue. > > Just my thoughts. I can try to draft a footnote today, but it's > a bit of a messy day (3 ICANN/IG calls plus that "day job"), so > I'm not sure if I can. > > Greg Shatan > > Gregory S. Shatan Partner Reed Smith LLP 599 Lexington Avenue > New York, NY 10022 212.549.0275 (Phone) 917.816.6428 > (Mobile) 212.521.5450 (Fax) gshatan@reedsmith.com > www.reedsmith.com > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- From: > owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr > Elsadr Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 7:40 AM To: Marika Konings > Cc: <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: > [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO WG Definitions of Decision-Making > Levels > > > Thanks for the feedback, Marika. I’d be grateful if you pointed > out the specifics in the document on today’s call. I have to > admit, I’ve been struggling with it. I’m no lawyer…, that’s for > sure. :) > > In any case, the sub-team’s intent has always been to address > revisions to take into consideration when consensus against WG > recommendations is the situation, as divergence does not reflect > this situation (as was the case with the IGO/INGO WG). That’s > probably why the definition of divergence is the only one that > hasn’t really been substantively changed. The focus has been on > the rest so far. > > Still…, we do have the three ways to move forward that Ron had > previously suggested: > > 1. Recommend changes in the definitions to the GNSO Council when > the SCI finalises them. 2. To not recommend any changes at this > time, and postpone changes to see if they indeed become > necessary in the future (although there have been some > recommendations not to do this). 3. The third option is to not > change the definitions, but instead to add a footnote to them > indicating that the decision-making levels could be used when > consensus is for or against WG recommendations. > > Thanks again, Marika. > > Amr > > On Apr 8, 2014, at 1:24 PM, Marika Konings > <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote: > >> Apologies for having missed the F2F meeting in Singapore, but >> how do these changes address the specific question that was put >> forward by the GNSO Council on behalf of the IGO/INGO PDP WG: >> 'and specifically requests the SCI to review and, if deemed >> appropriate, recommend revised or additional language to apply >> to situations where working groups may reach sufficient >> consensus against a particular proposal such that the >> appropriate consensus level cannot accurately be described as >> No Consensus/Divergence'? The additions / edits may be helpful >> clarifications but they seem to go beyond the scope of the >> specific question put forward to the SCI. But maybe I am >> missing something, so I am looking forward to discussing this >> further on the call later today. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 08/04/14 13:12, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I¹ve taken a stab at some very slight word-smithing on the >>> last draft of the WG consensus levels discussed at our F2F in >>> Singapore. I¹ve tried to capture the comments made, and a >>> little more and look forward to a discussion on this during >>> today¹s call. >>> >>> I have admittedly done this only today, so have not had time >>> to consult with the rest of the sub-team. Greg, Thomas, >>> CintraŠ, my apologies. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Amr >>> >> >> <default.xml> > > > > > * * * > > This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered > confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have > received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please > notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this > message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for > any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. > Thank you for your cooperation. > > * * * > > To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we > inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. > Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including > any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and > cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under > the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local > provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to > another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. > > Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00 > > > ________________________________ > > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use > of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. > If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the > intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for > delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient > you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or > copying of this message or any attachment is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, > please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The > information transmitted in this message and any attachments may > be privileged, is intended only for the personal and > confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by > the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. > > In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we > advise you that if this message or any attachments contains any > tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be > used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of > avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
________________________________
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this message or any attachments contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
________________________________
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this message or any attachments contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
________________________________
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this message or any attachments contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this message or any attachments contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.