I am fine with this.
j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@yahoo.com
From: "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de>
To: ray@goto.jobs; AAikman@lrlaw.com; marika.konings@icann.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
Sent: Thursday, October 4, 2012 9:38 AM
Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc]
Thanks Marika!
Any further comments?
If not, I'll take this as basis for perhaps a concluding
discussion on the subject in Toronto.
See the agenda for the SCI meeting in Toronto as well as
the status table.
The suggested text resp. options for the various topics are as
follows. Re "Raising an issue" Ron has already opted for #1.
Deferral
of motions – Proposed Response
The SCI was
asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may
request the deferral of a motion to a later date in those situations where a formal process for a
deferral is not specifically provided (for example, certain deferrals are
foreseen as part of the GNSO PDP, see http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16dec11-en.pdf). The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a
need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much
debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral
of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of
the GNSO Council. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no
need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that
it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must
always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative. Given that the current
informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that
same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also
exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific
situation that may occur with regard to this informal
practice.
===============
Proposed Language to address suspending a PDP (modification in bold of
section 15 of the PDP Manual)
The
GNSO Council may terminate or
suspend* 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 or
suspension. 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 is significantly impaired and unable to effectively conclude its
deliberations due to lack of volunteer participation.
*
Suspension is a 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. [to be included as a footnote]^
===============
Raising an issue, three possible approaches were identified during the last meeting:
- Maintain status quo - which means only the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council can request an item to be reviewed by the SCI. Possibly consider communicating to other SO/ACs / individuals, that if there are issues they would like to see reviewed by the SCI, that they will need to channel these via the GNSO Council and/or a group chartered by the GNSO Council.
- Add the possibility for other ICANN SO/ACs to make a direct request to the SCI – this would require a change to the SCI Charter and would need GNSO Council approval.
- Add the possibility for any chartered group to make a direct request to the SCI – this would require a change to the SCI Charter and would need GNSO Council approval. Some also noted that a definition of 'chartered' would be needed as it is not clear whether SO/ACs are chartered.
Members
are encouraged to share their views on these three options and/or identify any
other options that should be considered to address this issue ahead of the next
meeting.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
Wolf-Ulrich
Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Ray Fassett
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 27. September 2012 17:59
An: 'Aikman-Scalese, Anne'; 'Marika Konings'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: For your review - proposed response deferral of motionsI agree with Anne on both counts: It is well drafted and clear and will also defer to J. Scott as to substance.RayFrom: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:18 AM
To: 'Marika Konings'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: For your review - proposed response deferral of motionsThanks Marika. I'll defer to J. Scott as to substance, but wanted to remark I believe this is well-drafted and clear. Unfortunately I cannot make the call today due to a meeting at the McCarthy Institute. I'll listen to the reccording later to stay abreast. Thank you, AnneAnne 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/AikmanP 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: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 12:59 AM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For your review - proposed response deferral of motionsDear All,In relation to the issue of deferral of motions, please find below the latest version of the proposed response to the GNSO Council for review / approval on today's SCI meeting.With best regards,MarikaDeferral of motions – Proposed ResponseThe SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date in those situations where a formal process for a deferral is not specifically provided (for example, certain deferrals are foreseen as part of the GNSO PDP, see http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16dec11-en.pdf). The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situation that may occur with regard to this informal practice.
For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com.