Hi and thanks for the note, Greg. With the exception of the introductory sentence at the beginning, I believe the sub group intended that the actual language be that to be incorporated into or rather, added to the GNSO Operating Procedures. As such, would the attached updated version help? I¹ve basically just numbered (or re-numbered) the sections to correspond to the numbering used in the current GNSO Operating Procedures, with ³xx² to signify the actual Section number to be allotted to the final version. 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 From: <Shatan>, "Gregory S." <GShatan@reedsmith.com> Date: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 at 9:08 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: RE: Updated Electronic Voting language
All:
I am raising a process question with regard to the Electronic Voting language as it currently stands. Unlike the 10-day Waiver rule proposal and the resubmission proposal (among others), the Electronic Voting language is not currently drafted in the form of a rule that can be ³dropped into² the Operating Procedures. Instead, it is more of a statement of principles (although it has tightened up quite a bit through various drafts).
If we send it out for public comment and review in this form, wouldn¹t we then need to revise it to put it in the form of a draft rule, which would then go out for a second round of Consensus Call/public comment/GNSO Council review, and then (unless there are no issues raised with the drafting of the rule), wouldn¹t we need to revise it again to put it in the form of a final rule for a third round of Consensus Call/public comment/GNSO Council review before it can be adopted?
Would it make sense to revise the Electronic Voting language so that it is the form of a rule, which could eliminate a round of review and get the rule ³on the books² faster? (Given the evolution of the document, I think we are already halfway there.) Or is the issue sufficiently complex that it should be reviewed by the community ³in principle² first, before we turn it into a rule? Or am I missing something relating to process and procedures?
Best regards,
Greg
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 6:19 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Updated Electronic Voting language
Dear all,
Please find attached an updated draft of the proposed Electronic Voting procedure for the GNSO Council, based on the SCI meeting on 22 July. Please note also that, after consulting with Ron as the Chair, the finalized language for this procedure will be sent out together with the previously-approved language for the 10-day Motion Waiver procedure for a formal Consensus Call. Following the conclusion of the Consensus Call and assuming the two procedures are approved, staff will then prepare to send them out - together with the previously-adopted language regarding WG Consensus Levels - for public comment and GNSO Council review.
We will, as per usual practice, also notify and consult with ICANN Legal on all these adopted procedures, to ensure that they are in general conformity with other rules and processes in the ICANN community.
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
From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 at 4:09 PM To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items: SCI Meeting 22 July
Dear All,
Please find below the action items from the call on 22 July. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/22+July+2014. Our next meeting is scheduled in two weeks on Tuesday, 05 August at 1900 UTC. 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 22 July
1. Waiver of 10-Day Motion Deadline: 1) Put the language out for a formal consensus call (consensus must be unanimous); 2) If consensus is achieved combine with other changes to the Operating Procedures for public comment.
2. Remote/Electronic Voting: 1) Take out "regularly scheduled" in both instances where it appears in paragraph 5; 2) Send the revised language out for consensus call (consensus must be unanimous); 3) If consensus is acheived combine with other changes to the Operating Procedures for public comment.
* * *
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.
Disclaimer Version RS.US.201.407.01