Dear all,
Thank you, Marika, for the clarifying
points noted below.
I would particularly like to draw
Committee Members’ attention to the last sentence under the 3rd
bullet: “If the SCI insists on requiring a 'Termination
Report' or 'Suspension Report', it will be important to define
which information is expected to be contained in such report as it is
currently nowhere defined in the PDP manual.”. This is an
important consideration in finalizing the suspension/termination language.
Thank you,
RA
Ronald N. Andruff
From:
owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013
4:27 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne;
gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc]
Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP
Anne,
As requested, please
find attached the redline comparing the previous version from J. Scott with the
latest one you circulated. A couple of comments:
- PDP Team is used throughout
the PDP Manual as, even though the WG model is currently the preferred
option to conduct a PDP, it foresees the possibility for the GNSO Council
to choose another model should it decide so (e.g. Committee of the whole),
hence the use of the term 'PDP Team'.
- There is a timing issue with
having a seconded motion before a public comment period can be opened. The
current practice of the GNSO Council is to only allow for one deferral of
a motion, while a public comment forum may cover at least two Council
meetings. It is not clear to me why a properly seconded motion would be needed
before a public comment forum may be initiated (a public comment forum can
be initiated by the Council or WG at any time it wants, there is no motion
required to do so).
- Instead of mandating a written report, I had
suggested that in order to allow for flexibility, there would be more
discretion on the part of the Council liaison and/or WG to decide on the
format in which they 'convey to the GNSO Council the reasons
for the recommended action to be taken and, if applicable, the points of
view represented in the Working Group and the consensus status (as defined
by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines) at the time such action is
recommended' (for example, this could be in the form of an email, letter
or oral update to the GNSO Council). Especially since a safeguard has been
added to require a written report at the request of any Council member, AC
or Board. If the SCI insists on requiring a 'Termination Report' or
'Suspension Report', it will be important to define
which information is expected to be contained in such report as
it is currently nowhere defined in the PDP manual.
With best regards,
Marika
From: <Aikman-Scalese>,
Anne <AAikman@lrlaw.com>
Date: Saturday 9 February 2013
01:25
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org"
<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>
Subject: RE: Revised language
regarding suspension / termination of a PDP
Marisa,
I have taken your language and condensed
it a bit as well as trying to clarify that if there is no recommendation from
the WG before the Council, then there would have to be a properly seconded
motion in order to require the Council to seek public comment.
I don't think anyone was intending to
completely eliminate the requirement for a written report when the WG was
making the recommendation. That written Termination Report or Suspension
Report was mandatory where the recommendation for suspension or termination
came from the WG. That improvement was at the very heart
of this initiative and so that language has been added back where you had
deleted it.
On a more minor note, I also noticed that
the earlier paragraphs in this same section refer to "PDP Team"
and not "PDP Working Group". So I changed all the references
to PDP Team. It seems it should be one or the other consistently
throughout unless there is some difference I do not appreciate between a PDP
Team and PDP WG. I also think it would be fine for all references to be
to PDP WG and that is the term I hear used more often.
Attached is a new Feb 8 draft with the
changes accepted. While working on this, I ended up losing track of
the status of my redline and would appreciate it if you could run a
comparison btween this and the language the SCI reviewed in its last call so
that all members can see the proposed changes in my draft.
Thank you,
Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
Lewis and
Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725
AAikman@LRLaw.com
• www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman
P Please consider the environment before printing
this e-mail.
This e-mail contains legally privileged and
confidential information
intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication
was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete theoriginal
message.
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013
4:10 AM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc]
Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP
Dear All,
As discussed
yesterday, please find attached for your review the suggested modifications to
the last version of the language concerning the termination or suspension of a
PDP.
With best regards,
Marika
For
more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.