Thanks, J. Scott. However, in the revised version the recommendation of the WG for a termination or suspension no longer carries any specific weight. Was that intentional? With best regards, Marika From: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@yahoo.com> Reply-To: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@yahoo.com> Date: Thursday 10 January 2013 22:03 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrlaw.com>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Agenda for SCI Meeting 09 January Dear All: Taking into account Marika's comments on the rationale, I have deleted the sentence that requires a public comment when the termination or suspension is recommending by the Working Group. Will this work? J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@yahoo.com From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> To: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans@yahoo.com>; "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrlaw.com>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>; "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 1:50 AM Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Agenda for SCI Meeting 09 January All, I noticed that the proposed language significantly changes the current language in relation to the termination of a PDP and I thought it may be helpful to explain the original rationale of the PDP-WT for its approach (and I'm sure Jeff and/or Avri who were part of the PDP-WT will chime in if I got it wrong). It concerns the proposed section that reads 'The Council is required to conduct a public comment forum seeking community input on the report first prior to conducting a vote'. In its current form, a public comment forum on the termination of a PDP is only required if there is no recommendation from the PDP WG for such termination. As discussed by the PDP WT at the time, the idea was that if there was consensus from the WG to terminate the PDP and supermajority support from the GNSO Council to do so, there would be no need for additional public comment. Only if there would not be support from the PDP WG to terminate the PDP, the Council would be required to conduct a public comment forum to obtain community input on whether or not to terminate the PDP. I hope this helps inform your discussions on this topic. With best regards, Marika From: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@yahoo.com> Reply-To: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@yahoo.com> Date: Wednesday 9 January 2013 22:56 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrlaw.com>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Agenda for SCI Meeting 09 January Anne, et. al. I have attached a recommend revision to the last paragraph. J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@yahoo.com From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrlaw.com> To: 'Julie Hedlund' <julie.hedlund@icann.org>; "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 8:07 PM Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Agenda for SCI Meeting 09 January Ron, Avri, et al, Attached please see the draft J. Scott and I put together regarding the requirement for a report on termation or suspension. This is for discussion under Item 6 of the agenda below. Thank you, 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 <http://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 Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 3:03 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Agenda for SCI Meeting 09 January Dear SCI members, On behalf of the SCI Chair and Vice Chair, Ron Andruff and Avri Doria, below is a proposed agenda for the SCI meeting tomorrow, Wednesday, 09 January 2013 at 2100 UTC> Please let us know if you have any questions, comments, or changes. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Agenda, SCI Meeting, Wednesday, 09 January 2013 at 2100 UTC 1. Roll call (1 min) 2. Statement of Interests (1 min) 3. Approval of the agenda (1 min) 4. Chair/Vice Chair elections and terms and SCI Charter changes (10 mins) 5. Action on Working Group survey (10 mins) 6. Termination and Suspension of a PDP (15 mins) 7. GNSO Council Liaison to the SCI (5 mins) 8. Whether the SCI should solicit work or take on work from the GNSO Council (5 mins) 9. Re-submitting a motion ‹ Background Discussion (10 mins) 10. AOB (2 mins) For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com <http://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.
