Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft
Thanks, Greg. I'm still not clear to why it would say 'For the avoidance of doubt, if the requirements above are not met, the motion shall not be considered ³submitted²? Why can't it be considered submitted, but just not eligible to be considered for a vote at the meeting? The current practice is also that if a motion is submitted after the deadline it may get discussed, just not voted on during the meeting, but there is no need to resubmit it for the next meeting as it is already considered submitted and automatically carried over. Maybe I'm missing something? Best regards, Marika From: <Shatan>, "Gregory S." <GShatan@reedsmith.com> Date: Thursday 17 April 2014 03:40 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft All: Following up on our last meeting, I attach a revised version of the amendment to the Operating Procedures dealing with ³late² submission of a motion, with my revisions marked in ³track changes.² I look forward to your comments. Best regards, Greg Gregory S. Shatan Deputy Chair | Tech Transactions Group IP | Technology | Media ReedSmithLLP The business of relationships 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212.549.0275 | Phone 917.816.6428 | Mobile 212.521.5450 | Fax gshatan@reedsmith.com www.reedsmith.com * * * 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. * * * To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
I should probably be more specific about the reason for that statement - it is really aimed at the "resubmission of a motion" rule. I want to be clear that a late motion that doesn't get through this process does not have a "strike" against it in the resubmission of a motion rule. From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:34 AM To: Shatan, Gregory S.; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft Thanks, Greg. I'm still not clear to why it would say 'For the avoidance of doubt, if the requirements above are not met, the motion shall not be considered "submitted"? Why can't it be considered submitted, but just not eligible to be considered for a vote at the meeting? The current practice is also that if a motion is submitted after the deadline it may get discussed, just not voted on during the meeting, but there is no need to resubmit it for the next meeting as it is already considered submitted and automatically carried over. Maybe I'm missing something? Best regards, Marika From: <Shatan>, "Gregory S." <GShatan@reedsmith.com<mailto:GShatan@reedsmith.com>> Date: Thursday 17 April 2014 03:40 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft All: Following up on our last meeting, I attach a revised version of the amendment to the Operating Procedures dealing with "late" submission of a motion, with my revisions marked in "track changes." I look forward to your comments. Best regards, Greg Gregory S. Shatan Deputy Chair | Tech Transactions Group IP | Technology | Media ReedSmithLLP The business of relationships 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212.549.0275 | Phone 917.816.6428 | Mobile 212.521.5450 | Fax gshatan@reedsmith.com<mailto:gshatan@reedsmith.com> www.reedsmith.com<http://www.reedsmith.com> * * * 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. * * * To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
As discussed today on the SCI call, I agree with Marika's comment below, and I have deleted the sentence in question. In the attached draft, I have accepted all the changes from the prior draft and then deleted that sentence. There were no other comments on the list or on the call. I would suggest that this draft should be considered final (subject only to "accepting" the deletion of the sentence so that this is a clean document) for purposes of moving to the next step with this amendment to the Operating Procedures. Best regards, Greg Gregory S. Shatan Partner Reed Smith LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212.549.0275 (Phone) 917.816.6428 (Mobile) 212.521.5450 (Fax) gshatan@reedsmith.com www.reedsmith.com From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:34 AM To: Shatan, Gregory S.; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft Thanks, Greg. I'm still not clear to why it would say 'For the avoidance of doubt, if the requirements above are not met, the motion shall not be considered "submitted"? Why can't it be considered submitted, but just not eligible to be considered for a vote at the meeting? The current practice is also that if a motion is submitted after the deadline it may get discussed, just not voted on during the meeting, but there is no need to resubmit it for the next meeting as it is already considered submitted and automatically carried over. Maybe I'm missing something? Best regards, Marika From: <Shatan>, "Gregory S." <GShatan@reedsmith.com<mailto:GShatan@reedsmith.com>> Date: Thursday 17 April 2014 03:40 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft All: Following up on our last meeting, I attach a revised version of the amendment to the Operating Procedures dealing with "late" submission of a motion, with my revisions marked in "track changes." I look forward to your comments. Best regards, Greg Gregory S. Shatan Deputy Chair | Tech Transactions Group IP | Technology | Media ReedSmithLLP The business of relationships 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212.549.0275 | Phone 917.816.6428 | Mobile 212.521.5450 | Fax gshatan@reedsmith.com<mailto:gshatan@reedsmith.com> www.reedsmith.com<http://www.reedsmith.com> * * * 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. * * * To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
Hi Greg and all, I know I’ve brought this up repetitively and I hate being a nag, but there’s still an inconvenient loophole in this text regarding resubmission of motions. On its meeting of March 26th, 2014, the GNSO Council approved the SCI recommendation to amend the GNSO Operating Procedures by adding sections 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 detailing the guidelines of motions being resubmitted. Section 4.3.3, claus number 1 reads as follows:
“1. Explanation: The Councilor submitting the motion must also submit an explanation for the resubmission of the motion. The explanation need not accompany the motion when it is resubmitted; however, the explanation must be submitted no later than the deadline for submitting the motion (i.e., no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day 10 calendar days before the Council meeting at which the motion is to be reconsidered). The explanation does not need to meet any requirements other than being submitted in a timely manner.”
If the SCI determines that it would like the 10-day rule waiver to also apply to motions being resubmitted (and not exclusively to motions being submitted for the first time) in its recommendation to the Council, then there needs to be clarifying text to that effect. If the SCI does not recommend that the waiver should apply to resubmitted motions, then no further action is necessary. If the former is true, and not the latter, the the way I read it, the required clarification should either be added as a fourth bullet to 3.3.2 referencing 4.3.3, or perhaps an added numbered item to 4.3.4 (Limitations and Exceptions to Resubmission of a Motion) referring to the waiver rule in 3.3.2. Without these changes, I can’t see how the text of the operating procedures will support the waiver rule being applied to resubmitted motions in the event that the need arises. Thanks. Amr On Apr 22, 2014, at 9:53 PM, Shatan, Gregory S. <GShatan@reedsmith.com> wrote:
As discussed today on the SCI call, I agree with Marika’s comment below, and I have deleted the sentence in question. In the attached draft, I have accepted all the changes from the prior draft and then deleted that sentence. There were no other comments on the list or on the call.
I would suggest that this draft should be considered final (subject only to “accepting” the deletion of the sentence so that this is a clean document) for purposes of moving to the next step with this amendment to the Operating Procedures.
Best regards,
Greg
Gregory S. Shatan Partner Reed Smith LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212.549.0275 (Phone) 917.816.6428 (Mobile) 212.521.5450 (Fax) gshatan@reedsmith.com www.reedsmith.com
From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:34 AM To: Shatan, Gregory S.; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft
Thanks, Greg. I'm still not clear to why it would say 'For the avoidance of doubt, if the requirements above are not met, the motion shall not be considered “submitted”? Why can't it be considered submitted, but just not eligible to be considered for a vote at the meeting? The current practice is also that if a motion is submitted after the deadline it may get discussed, just not voted on during the meeting, but there is no need to resubmit it for the next meeting as it is already considered submitted and automatically carried over. Maybe I'm missing something?
Best regards,
Marika
From: <Shatan>, "Gregory S." <GShatan@reedsmith.com> Date: Thursday 17 April 2014 03:40 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft
All:
Following up on our last meeting, I attach a revised version of the amendment to the Operating Procedures dealing with “late” submission of a motion, with my revisions marked in “track changes.”
I look forward to your comments.
Best regards,
Greg
Gregory S. Shatan Deputy Chair | Tech Transactions Group IP | Technology | Media ReedSmithLLP The business of relationships 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212.549.0275 | Phone 917.816.6428 | Mobile 212.521.5450 | Fax gshatan@reedsmith.com www.reedsmith.com
* * * 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. * * * To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00 <Motion waiver draft language - 22 April 2014.DOC>
I think the solution to this problem is to revise the language quoted below and keep the waiver section as is. For example: "1. Explanation: The Councilor submitting the motion must also submit an explanation for the resubmission of the motion. The explanation need not accompany the motion when it is resubmitted; however, the explanation must be submitted no later than the deadline for submitting the motion (i.e., no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day 10 calendar days before the Council meeting at which the motion is to be reconsidered, unless the requirements for late submission in Section 3.3.2 are also met). The explanation does not need to meet any requirements other than being submitted in a timely manner." Thoughts? Greg From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 4:53 PM To: Shatan, Gregory S. Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft Hi Greg and all, I know I've brought this up repetitively and I hate being a nag, but there's still an inconvenient loophole in this text regarding resubmission of motions. On its meeting of March 26th, 2014, the GNSO Council approved the SCI recommendation to amend the GNSO Operating Procedures by adding sections 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 detailing the guidelines of motions being resubmitted. Section 4.3.3, claus number 1 reads as follows: "1. Explanation: The Councilor submitting the motion must also submit an explanation for the resubmission of the motion. The explanation need not accompany the motion when it is resubmitted; however, the explanation must be submitted no later than the deadline for submitting the motion (i.e., no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day 10 calendar days before the Council meeting at which the motion is to be reconsidered). The explanation does not need to meet any requirements other than being submitted in a timely manner." If the SCI determines that it would like the 10-day rule waiver to also apply to motions being resubmitted (and not exclusively to motions being submitted for the first time) in its recommendation to the Council, then there needs to be clarifying text to that effect. If the SCI does not recommend that the waiver should apply to resubmitted motions, then no further action is necessary. If the former is true, and not the latter, the the way I read it, the required clarification should either be added as a fourth bullet to 3.3.2 referencing 4.3.3, or perhaps an added numbered item to 4.3.4 (Limitations and Exceptions to Resubmission of a Motion) referring to the waiver rule in 3.3.2. Without these changes, I can't see how the text of the operating procedures will support the waiver rule being applied to resubmitted motions in the event that the need arises. Thanks. Amr On Apr 22, 2014, at 9:53 PM, Shatan, Gregory S. <GShatan@reedsmith.com<mailto:GShatan@reedsmith.com>> wrote: As discussed today on the SCI call, I agree with Marika's comment below, and I have deleted the sentence in question. In the attached draft, I have accepted all the changes from the prior draft and then deleted that sentence. There were no other comments on the list or on the call. I would suggest that this draft should be considered final (subject only to "accepting" the deletion of the sentence so that this is a clean document) for purposes of moving to the next step with this amendment to the Operating Procedures. Best regards, Greg Gregory S. Shatan Partner Reed Smith LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212.549.0275 (Phone) 917.816.6428 (Mobile) 212.521.5450 (Fax) gshatan@reedsmith.com<mailto:gshatan@reedsmith.com> www.reedsmith.com<http://www.reedsmith.com/> From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:34 AM To: Shatan, Gregory S.; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft Thanks, Greg. I'm still not clear to why it would say 'For the avoidance of doubt, if the requirements above are not met, the motion shall not be considered "submitted"? Why can't it be considered submitted, but just not eligible to be considered for a vote at the meeting? The current practice is also that if a motion is submitted after the deadline it may get discussed, just not voted on during the meeting, but there is no need to resubmit it for the next meeting as it is already considered submitted and automatically carried over. Maybe I'm missing something? Best regards, Marika From: <Shatan>, "Gregory S." <GShatan@reedsmith.com<mailto:GShatan@reedsmith.com>> Date: Thursday 17 April 2014 03:40 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft All: Following up on our last meeting, I attach a revised version of the amendment to the Operating Procedures dealing with "late" submission of a motion, with my revisions marked in "track changes." I look forward to your comments. Best regards, Greg Gregory S. Shatan Deputy Chair | Tech Transactions Group IP | Technology | Media ReedSmithLLP The business of relationships 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212.549.0275 | Phone 917.816.6428 | Mobile 212.521.5450 | Fax gshatan@reedsmith.com<mailto:gshatan@reedsmith.com> www.reedsmith.com<http://www.reedsmith.com/> * * * 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. * * * To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00 <Motion waiver draft language - 22 April 2014.DOC>
Yeah…, I think that would work nicely. Thanks Greg. Amr On Apr 24, 2014, at 2:50 AM, Shatan, Gregory S. <GShatan@reedsmith.com> wrote:
I think the solution to this problem is to revise the language quoted below and keep the waiver section as is.
For example:
“1. Explanation: The Councilor submitting the motion must also submit an explanation for the resubmission of the motion. The explanation need not accompany the motion when it is resubmitted; however, the explanation must be submitted no later than the deadline for submitting the motion (i.e., no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day 10 calendar days before the Council meeting at which the motion is to be reconsidered, unless the requirements for late submission in Section 3.3.2 are also met). The explanation does not need to meet any requirements other than being submitted in a timely manner.”
Thoughts?
Greg
From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 4:53 PM To: Shatan, Gregory S. Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft
Hi Greg and all,
I know I’ve brought this up repetitively and I hate being a nag, but there’s still an inconvenient loophole in this text regarding resubmission of motions. On its meeting of March 26th, 2014, the GNSO Council approved the SCI recommendation to amend the GNSO Operating Procedures by adding sections 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 detailing the guidelines of motions being resubmitted. Section 4.3.3, claus number 1 reads as follows:
“1. Explanation: The Councilor submitting the motion must also submit an explanation for the resubmission of the motion. The explanation need not accompany the motion when it is resubmitted; however, the explanation must be submitted no later than the deadline for submitting the motion (i.e., no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day 10 calendar days before the Council meeting at which the motion is to be reconsidered). The explanation does not need to meet any requirements other than being submitted in a timely manner.”
If the SCI determines that it would like the 10-day rule waiver to also apply to motions being resubmitted (and not exclusively to motions being submitted for the first time) in its recommendation to the Council, then there needs to be clarifying text to that effect. If the SCI does not recommend that the waiver should apply to resubmitted motions, then no further action is necessary. If the former is true, and not the latter, the the way I read it, the required clarification should either be added as a fourth bullet to 3.3.2 referencing 4.3.3, or perhaps an added numbered item to 4.3.4 (Limitations and Exceptions to Resubmission of a Motion) referring to the waiver rule in 3.3.2. Without these changes, I can’t see how the text of the operating procedures will support the waiver rule being applied to resubmitted motions in the event that the need arises.
Thanks.
Amr
On Apr 22, 2014, at 9:53 PM, Shatan, Gregory S. <GShatan@reedsmith.com> wrote:
As discussed today on the SCI call, I agree with Marika’s comment below, and I have deleted the sentence in question. In the attached draft, I have accepted all the changes from the prior draft and then deleted that sentence. There were no other comments on the list or on the call.
I would suggest that this draft should be considered final (subject only to “accepting” the deletion of the sentence so that this is a clean document) for purposes of moving to the next step with this amendment to the Operating Procedures.
Best regards,
Greg
Gregory S. Shatan Partner Reed Smith LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212.549.0275 (Phone) 917.816.6428 (Mobile) 212.521.5450 (Fax) gshatan@reedsmith.com www.reedsmith.com
From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:34 AM To: Shatan, Gregory S.; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft
Thanks, Greg. I'm still not clear to why it would say 'For the avoidance of doubt, if the requirements above are not met, the motion shall not be considered “submitted”? Why can't it be considered submitted, but just not eligible to be considered for a vote at the meeting? The current practice is also that if a motion is submitted after the deadline it may get discussed, just not voted on during the meeting, but there is no need to resubmit it for the next meeting as it is already considered submitted and automatically carried over. Maybe I'm missing something?
Best regards,
Marika
From: <Shatan>, "Gregory S." <GShatan@reedsmith.com> Date: Thursday 17 April 2014 03:40 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft
All:
Following up on our last meeting, I attach a revised version of the amendment to the Operating Procedures dealing with “late” submission of a motion, with my revisions marked in “track changes.”
I look forward to your comments.
Best regards,
Greg
Gregory S. Shatan Deputy Chair | Tech Transactions Group IP | Technology | Media ReedSmithLLP The business of relationships 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212.549.0275 | Phone 917.816.6428 | Mobile 212.521.5450 | Fax gshatan@reedsmith.com www.reedsmith.com
* * * 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. * * * To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00 <Motion waiver draft language - 22 April 2014.DOC>
Thanks Greg and Amr. This looks like a good solution to me as well. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners <http://www.rnapartners.com> www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Shatan, Gregory S. Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 20:51 To: 'Amr Elsadr' Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft I think the solution to this problem is to revise the language quoted below and keep the waiver section as is. For example: "1. Explanation: The Councilor submitting the motion must also submit an explanation for the resubmission of the motion. The explanation need not accompany the motion when it is resubmitted; however, the explanation must be submitted no later than the deadline for submitting the motion (i.e., no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day 10 calendar days before the Council meeting at which the motion is to be reconsidered, unless the requirements for late submission in Section 3.3.2 are also met). The explanation does not need to meet any requirements other than being submitted in a timely manner." Thoughts? Greg From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 4:53 PM To: Shatan, Gregory S. Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft Hi Greg and all, I know I've brought this up repetitively and I hate being a nag, but there's still an inconvenient loophole in this text regarding resubmission of motions. On its meeting of March 26th, 2014, the GNSO Council approved the SCI recommendation to amend the GNSO Operating Procedures by adding sections 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 detailing the guidelines of motions being resubmitted. Section 4.3.3, claus number 1 reads as follows: "1. Explanation: The Councilor submitting the motion must also submit an explanation for the resubmission of the motion. The explanation need not accompany the motion when it is resubmitted; however, the explanation must be submitted no later than the deadline for submitting the motion (i.e., no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day 10 calendar days before the Council meeting at which the motion is to be reconsidered). The explanation does not need to meet any requirements other than being submitted in a timely manner." If the SCI determines that it would like the 10-day rule waiver to also apply to motions being resubmitted (and not exclusively to motions being submitted for the first time) in its recommendation to the Council, then there needs to be clarifying text to that effect. If the SCI does not recommend that the waiver should apply to resubmitted motions, then no further action is necessary. If the former is true, and not the latter, the the way I read it, the required clarification should either be added as a fourth bullet to 3.3.2 referencing 4.3.3, or perhaps an added numbered item to 4.3.4 (Limitations and Exceptions to Resubmission of a Motion) referring to the waiver rule in 3.3.2. Without these changes, I can't see how the text of the operating procedures will support the waiver rule being applied to resubmitted motions in the event that the need arises. Thanks. Amr On Apr 22, 2014, at 9:53 PM, Shatan, Gregory S. <GShatan@reedsmith.com <mailto:GShatan@reedsmith.com> > wrote: As discussed today on the SCI call, I agree with Marika's comment below, and I have deleted the sentence in question. In the attached draft, I have accepted all the changes from the prior draft and then deleted that sentence. There were no other comments on the list or on the call. I would suggest that this draft should be considered final (subject only to "accepting" the deletion of the sentence so that this is a clean document) for purposes of moving to the next step with this amendment to the Operating Procedures. Best regards, Greg Gregory S. Shatan Partner Reed Smith LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212.549.0275 (Phone) 917.816.6428 (Mobile) 212.521.5450 (Fax) <mailto:gshatan@reedsmith.com> gshatan@reedsmith.com <http://www.reedsmith.com/> www.reedsmith.com From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:34 AM To: Shatan, Gregory S.; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft Thanks, Greg. I'm still not clear to why it would say 'For the avoidance of doubt, if the requirements above are not met, the motion shall not be considered "submitted"? Why can't it be considered submitted, but just not eligible to be considered for a vote at the meeting? The current practice is also that if a motion is submitted after the deadline it may get discussed, just not voted on during the meeting, but there is no need to resubmit it for the next meeting as it is already considered submitted and automatically carried over. Maybe I'm missing something? Best regards, Marika From: <Shatan>, "Gregory S." < <mailto:GShatan@reedsmith.com> GShatan@reedsmith.com> Date: Thursday 17 April 2014 03:40 To: " <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" < <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft All: Following up on our last meeting, I attach a revised version of the amendment to the Operating Procedures dealing with "late" submission of a motion, with my revisions marked in "track changes." I look forward to your comments. Best regards, Greg Gregory S. Shatan Deputy Chair | Tech Transactions Group IP | Technology | Media ReedSmithLLP The business of relationships 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212.549.0275 | Phone 917.816.6428 | Mobile 212.521.5450 | Fax <mailto:gshatan@reedsmith.com> gshatan@reedsmith.com <http://www.reedsmith.com/> www.reedsmith.com * * * 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. * * * To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00 <Motion waiver draft language - 22 April 2014.DOC>
participants (4)
-
Amr Elsadr -
Marika Konings -
Ron Andruff -
Shatan, Gregory S.