I agree with Anne on both counts: It is well drafted and clear and will also defer to J. Scott as to substance. Ray From: 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 motions Thanks 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, 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. _____ 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 motions Dear 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, Marika 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. _____ For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to <http://www.lewisandroca.com/> 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.

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: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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   

________________________________ 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 motions

I agree with Anne on both counts:  It is well drafted and clear and will also defer to J. Scott as to substance.   Ray   From: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 motions   Thanks 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, 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.    

________________________________

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 motions Dear 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,   Marika   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.    

________________________________

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.