|
From:
|
"Aikman-Scalese,
Anne" <AAikman@lrlaw.com>
|
|
To:
|
"gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org"
<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>,
"randruff@rnapartners.com" <randruff@rnapartners.com>,
"Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu" <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu>,
"marika.konings@icann.org" <marika.konings@icann.org>
|
|
Date:
|
12/16/2012
8:29 AM
|
|
Subject:
|
Re:
[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
|
Marika, I see the
point of broader considerations but think the analogy to a bandaid on an
unmanifested wound is very poor. It's actually a bit more like putting on a
helmet before riding a bike. See you Monday at the brunch and maybe we can
talk further! Anne
Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: Marika Konings
[marika.konings@icann.org]
Received: Sunday, 16 Dec
2012, 2:10am
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
[AAikman@lrlaw.com]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
[gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org]; randruff@rnapartners.com
[randruff@rnapartners.com]; Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu]
Subject: Re:
[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
It should also be noted
that an 'interim status report' is currently not defined in the PDP Manual
(what would need to be in there, who is responsible for preparing it, would
it need to be adopted by a vote of the GNSO Council?). Furthermore, in
addition to the Board, ICANN Advisory Committees can also request Issue
Reports, but they have not been considered in this conversation.
As a result, I would
really like to encourage the SCI to review this issue in a broader context
(if/when/how should PDP status updates be provided to entities other than the
GNSO Council during the lifespan of a PDP, taking into account all the
different communication tools already in place) as part of the overall review
of the PDP, instead of applying a bandaid here to a wound that has not even
manifested itself.
Just a minor note
that at this point we were not limiting the interim status report to any
"Board-directed PDP". I think the simplest add would be to require
an interim status report to the GNSO Council, e.g. "all activities
(other than an interim status report to the Council) will halt." Then
SCI could recommend that the interim status report be published to the entire
community. Anne
Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu]
Received: Friday, 14 Dec 2012, 7:22pm
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org];
Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman@lrlaw.com];
randruff@rnapartners.com [randruff@rnapartners.com]
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a
PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
I support the concept of an interim report to be put out
to the community by the GNSO Council upon its suspension of a PDP; however,
I'd like to separate out our actual recommendation (which is to clarify what
and when there is considered to be a suspension of a PDP) with our opinion as
to either the GNSO Council's relationship with/reaction to Board-directed PDPs
or as to appropriate action by the Council in voting for a suspension.
I'd therefore suggest a slight modification to our Option 3 - take the
language/mention of an interim report out of the sentence containing our
recommendation, and either add a new sentence following that, or create an
additional, related recommendation, stating that "The SCI recommends
that, in cases of suspension of a Board-directed PDP, the GNSO Council issues
an interim report stating the reasons for such suspension to the community."
Or something along those lines.
Cheers
Mary
>>> "Ron Andruff" 12/14/12 3:13 PM >>>
Dear all,
Recognizing that I am not yet installed as the Chair of the SCI
until our next meeting this coming Thursday (Dec. 20th), yet being
responsible for that meeting, (forgive me Wolf-Ulrich) I have two requests:
(1) It would be very helpful if all SCI members would look at
where we are with the ?Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote? and add
your thoughts. The most recent exchanges on that thread are noted
below. It appears that we have found a way forward, but this needs to
be confirmed by all members.
(2) I would also ask everyone to take a few minutes to complete
the Survey that Julie sent around again today with her request that we all
fill it out and note our experience and thoughts about amendments. She
has asked for this to be done by Wednesday, Dec. 19th, so please do take a
few minutes if you can spare them during this busy lead up to Christmas so
that we can have a productive discussion.
Thank you all in advance for attending to these two outstanding
items.
Kind regards,
RA
Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.
Ron, I would certainly support that notion in the interest of
accountability and transparency.
 Anne E.
Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700
One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
Tel (520) 629-4428 ? Fax (520) 879-4725
AAikman@LRLaw.com ?
www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman
P Please consider the environment before printing
this e-mail.
This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential
information
intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication
was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the
original message.
From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com]
Sent: Thursday, December
13, 2012 10:39 AM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Subject: RE:
[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
Question for all re: an
interim status report to the ICANN Board
If I understand Anne?s line of thinking, the concern is about how
to deal specifically with Board requested PDPs that are suspended.
However, option 3 sounds like we are recommending that the Board receive an
interim report whether they have initiated the PDP or not. This is a
significant change and would only add more to the Board?s already full plate,
in my view.
That said, in circumstance where a suspension has been called
for, I do see the merit of requesting that Council generate an interim report
and post it to inform the entire community of the suspension and reason(s) for which it was
suspended. That would be quite logical in the larger scheme of things.
Anne, please correct me if I am wrong.
Kind regards,
RA
Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.
I would propose a third option:
 Anne E.
Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700
One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
Tel (520) 629-4428 ? Fax (520) 879-4725
AAikman@LRLaw.com ?
www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman
P Please consider the environment before printing
this e-mail.
This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential
information
intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication
was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the
original message.
From:KnobenW@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de]
Sent: Thursday, December
13, 2012 8:49 AM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
Subject: AW:
[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
All,
from the list I did not understand a clear objection against
sending the draft motion to the council with the option of withdrawing it if
there can't be found SCI consensus. So I took this responsibility and did it
to preserve this chance.
I'd like to encourage all of us to continue working at a solution
re the footnote. 2 suggestions are at the table:
2.
Suspension
is a STATEDtime interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the
PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council, subject to ICANN Board review in those cases where the Board has
requested GNSO input. A mere change in
milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension.
I wonder what how to proceed if there will be no consensus found
at thew time being. On the one hand I've got the impression that a majority
would be satisfied with suggestion #1 but also open to find a solution which
doesn't cause the need for another public comment period.
In case of no consensus we could also - as we did with
other items discussed at the SCI - report to the council where we are, that
there has been a public comment period successfully finished, but there are
still concerns which would prevent the SCI from consensus. The council may
then decide how to deal with the (publicly commented) text.
I would be thankful hearing your assessment on and under which
conditions consensus could still be achieved.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@lrlaw.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2012 03:13
An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org;
Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending
a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
I do not believe that this "negative response"
mechanism is in accordance with the full consensus process. I also believe I
spoke against this at the last reading. Anne
Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: KnobenW@telekom.de [KnobenW@telekom.de]
Received: Wednesday, 12 Dec 2012, 5:06am
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org]
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed
Revised Footnote
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.
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.
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
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@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@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@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 .
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 the
original message.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@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@telekom.de>
<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]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52
> An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri@acm.org;
> 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@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) 879-4725AAikman@LRLaw.com .
>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P
Please consider the environment before
>> printing this e-mail.
>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
>> intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
>> agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
>> hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
>> copying of this communication is prohibited. If this
communication
>> was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete
>> the original message.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: 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@telekom.de; avri@acm.org; 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@telekom.de"
<KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org]
Im Auftrag von Avri
>>> Doria
>>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39
>>> An: 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);
>>>
>>> ....
>>> "
>>>
>>> "
>>> 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)
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff@rnapartners.com]
>>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm
>>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri@acm.org];
gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc@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@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@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@telekom.de> <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@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@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 . 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 the
>>>> original message.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com]
>>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM
>>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne;
>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc@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 -
jscottevans@yahoo.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>
>>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrlaw.com>;
>>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org"
<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@LRLaw.com>
>>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM
>>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org"
>>>> <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>,
>>>> Julie Hedlund <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)
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund@icann.org]
>>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm
>>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
>>>>> [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.
>>>>> Phoenix (602)262-5311
Reno (775)823-2900
>>>>> Tucson (520)622-2090
Albuquerque(505)764-5400
>>>>> Las Vegas (702)949-8200
Silicon Valley (650)391-1380
>>>>> This message is intended only for the use of 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
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.
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.
|