Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft)
Dear SCI members, Please find attached the latest version of the proposed language relating to Waivers/Exceptions for motions in the GNSO Operating Procedures. As noted in last week¹s call, the Consensus Call for this issue will be conducted via this email list. Note, however, that we are suggesting a slight change to the language circulated by Greg and discussed in the email thread below. In reviewing the proposed language prior to circulation for a Consensus Call, we noted that the suggested Explanation in Greg¹s latest email (below) would entail a further change to the revised Resubmission of a Motion language in the GNSO Operating Procedures, which initial revisions were approved by the GNSO Council (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201403). As any further changes will have to be published for public comment, an alternative solution might be to add a sentence to the proposed Waivers/Exception language to address the concern voiced by Amr in an earlier email. Please indicate whether you, on behalf of your respective stakeholder groups and/or constituencies, support or do not support the attached proposed language. If in light of this email note you wish to discuss the issue further prior to concluding the Consensus Call, please indicate this as well. Thank you all! A second email relating to a Consensus Call for the separate issue of language relating to Working Group Consensus Levels will follow shortly. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org * One World. One Internet. * From: Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com> Date: Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 6:13 PM To: "'Shatan, Gregory S.'" <GShatan@reedsmith.com>, 'Amr Elsadr' <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft
Thanks Greg and Amr. This looks like a good solution to me as well.
Kind regards,
RA
Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com <http://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:
³1. 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.²
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 I¹ve brought this up repetitively and I hate being a nag, but there¹s 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:
³1. 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.²
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 can¹t 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 Marika¹s 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 ³accepting² 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 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 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 <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 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 <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>
Dear all, It is unclear to me how this new language affects Reports. In other words, if a Motion involves, for example, adoption of a Report, but that report was not submitted prior to 24 hours before the GNSO Council meeting, does the exception/waiver still apply even if the Report itself was not circulated until 24 hours prior to the meeting? I am asking because the waiver language does not deal with Reports but the section otherwise does deal with Reports. Anne [cid:image001.gif@01CF6498.FC94A3C0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | Suite 700 One South Church Avenue | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> [cid:image002.jpg@01CF6498.FC94A3C0] Lewis and Roca LLP is now Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP. From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 11:56 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) Dear SCI members, Please find attached the latest version of the proposed language relating to Waivers/Exceptions for motions in the GNSO Operating Procedures. As noted in last week’s call, the Consensus Call for this issue will be conducted via this email list. Note, however, that we are suggesting a slight change to the language circulated by Greg and discussed in the email thread below. In reviewing the proposed language prior to circulation for a Consensus Call, we noted that the suggested Explanation in Greg’s latest email (below) would entail a further change to the revised Resubmission of a Motion language in the GNSO Operating Procedures, which initial revisions were approved by the GNSO Council (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201403). As any further changes will have to be published for public comment, an alternative solution might be to add a sentence to the proposed Waivers/Exception language to address the concern voiced by Amr in an earlier email. Please indicate whether you, on behalf of your respective stakeholder groups and/or constituencies, support or do not support the attached proposed language. If in light of this email note you wish to discuss the issue further prior to concluding the Consensus Call, please indicate this as well. Thank you all! A second email relating to a Consensus Call for the separate issue of language relating to Working Group Consensus Levels will follow shortly. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> * One World. One Internet. * From: Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>> Date: Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 6:13 PM To: "'Shatan, Gregory S.'" <GShatan@reedsmith.com<mailto:GShatan@reedsmith.com>>, 'Amr Elsadr' <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "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: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft Thanks Greg and Amr. This looks like a good solution to me as well. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com<http://www.rnapartners.com> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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) 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> ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this message or any attachments 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.
Thanks Mary. One question: Wouldn’t the proposed changes here need to be published for public comment as well? There are still changes being recommended to the operating procedures, right? Does it make a difference which section the reference to resubmitted motions lands? Thanks again. Amr On Apr 30, 2014, at 8:56 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear SCI members,
Please find attached the latest version of the proposed language relating to Waivers/Exceptions for motions in the GNSO Operating Procedures. As noted in last week’s call, the Consensus Call for this issue will be conducted via this email list.
Note, however, that we are suggesting a slight change to the language circulated by Greg and discussed in the email thread below. In reviewing the proposed language prior to circulation for a Consensus Call, we noted that the suggested Explanation in Greg’s latest email (below) would entail a further change to the revised Resubmission of a Motion language in the GNSO Operating Procedures, which initial revisions were approved by the GNSO Council (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201403). As any further changes will have to be published for public comment, an alternative solution might be to add a sentence to the proposed Waivers/Exception language to address the concern voiced by Amr in an earlier email.
Please indicate whether you, on behalf of your respective stakeholder groups and/or constituencies, support or do not support the attached proposed language. If in light of this email note you wish to discuss the issue further prior to concluding the Consensus Call, please indicate this as well.
Thank you all! A second email relating to a Consensus Call for the separate issue of language relating to Working Group Consensus Levels will follow shortly.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
* One World. One Internet. *
From: Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com> Date: Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 6:13 PM To: "'Shatan, Gregory S.'" <GShatan@reedsmith.com>, 'Amr Elsadr' <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft
Thanks Greg and Amr. This looks like a good solution to me as well.
Kind regards,
RA
Ron Andruff RNA Partners 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 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>
<Proposed Language f#1D7F33E.doc>
Hi Amr, yes; any proposed changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures, including to the WG Guidelines, need to go out for public comment and that¹s the rub with the interplay here between the Resubmission of a Motion language (published for public comment and approved) and the Waiver/Exception proposal (not yet published). It may be awkward to send the Resubmission language out AGAIN for public comment so the more streamlined course of action would be to address the overlap in the Waiver/Exception language now. After the Waiver/Exception language is approved by the SCI, it will then need to go out for public comment which we recommend be done together with any other proposed changes the SCI may wish to make, e.g. Voting by Email. I hope this helps clarify ? Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org * One World. One Internet. * From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Date: Thursday, May 1, 2014 at 4:58 AM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft)
Thanks Mary. One question: Wouldn¹t the proposed changes here need to be published for public comment as well? There are still changes being recommended to the operating procedures, right? Does it make a difference which section the reference to resubmitted motions lands?
Thanks again.
Amr
On Apr 30, 2014, at 8:56 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear SCI members,
Please find attached the latest version of the proposed language relating to Waivers/Exceptions for motions in the GNSO Operating Procedures. As noted in last week¹s call, the Consensus Call for this issue will be conducted via this email list.
Note, however, that we are suggesting a slight change to the language circulated by Greg and discussed in the email thread below. In reviewing the proposed language prior to circulation for a Consensus Call, we noted that the suggested Explanation in Greg¹s latest email (below) would entail a further change to the revised Resubmission of a Motion language in the GNSO Operating Procedures, which initial revisions were approved by the GNSO Council (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201403). As any further changes will have to be published for public comment, an alternative solution might be to add a sentence to the proposed Waivers/Exception language to address the concern voiced by Amr in an earlier email.
Please indicate whether you, on behalf of your respective stakeholder groups and/or constituencies, support or do not support the attached proposed language. If in light of this email note you wish to discuss the issue further prior to concluding the Consensus Call, please indicate this as well.
Thank you all! A second email relating to a Consensus Call for the separate issue of language relating to Working Group Consensus Levels will follow shortly.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
* One World. One Internet. *
From: Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com> Date: Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 6:13 PM To: "'Shatan, Gregory S.'" <GShatan@reedsmith.com>, 'Amr Elsadr' <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft
Thanks Greg and Amr. This looks like a good solution to me as well.
Kind regards,
RA
Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com <http://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:
³1. 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.²
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 I¹ve brought this up repetitively and I hate being a nag, but there¹s 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:
³1. 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.²
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 can¹t 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 Marika¹s 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 ³accepting² 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 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 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 <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 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 <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>
<Proposed Language f#1D7F33E.doc>
Yeah…, I think so. Thanks Mary. It works out fine in both cases anyway. One more question…, and excuse my inexperience :); Does the ICANN board need to approve changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures after they are approved by the Council? Does that have anything to do with the resubmission language still being in red-line in the operating procedures document? Thanks again, Mary. Amr On May 1, 2014, at 4:02 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Amr, yes; any proposed changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures, including to the WG Guidelines, need to go out for public comment – and that’s the rub with the interplay here between the Resubmission of a Motion language (published for public comment and approved) and the Waiver/Exception proposal (not yet published). It may be awkward to send the Resubmission language out AGAIN for public comment so the more streamlined course of action would be to address the overlap in the Waiver/Exception language now. After the Waiver/Exception language is approved by the SCI, it will then need to go out for public comment – which we recommend be done together with any other proposed changes the SCI may wish to make, e.g. Voting by Email.
I hope this helps clarify … ?
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
* One World. One Internet. *
From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Date: Thursday, May 1, 2014 at 4:58 AM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft)
Thanks Mary. One question: Wouldn’t the proposed changes here need to be published for public comment as well? There are still changes being recommended to the operating procedures, right? Does it make a difference which section the reference to resubmitted motions lands?
Thanks again.
Amr
On Apr 30, 2014, at 8:56 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear SCI members,
Please find attached the latest version of the proposed language relating to Waivers/Exceptions for motions in the GNSO Operating Procedures. As noted in last week’s call, the Consensus Call for this issue will be conducted via this email list.
Note, however, that we are suggesting a slight change to the language circulated by Greg and discussed in the email thread below. In reviewing the proposed language prior to circulation for a Consensus Call, we noted that the suggested Explanation in Greg’s latest email (below) would entail a further change to the revised Resubmission of a Motion language in the GNSO Operating Procedures, which initial revisions were approved by the GNSO Council (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201403). As any further changes will have to be published for public comment, an alternative solution might be to add a sentence to the proposed Waivers/Exception language to address the concern voiced by Amr in an earlier email.
Please indicate whether you, on behalf of your respective stakeholder groups and/or constituencies, support or do not support the attached proposed language. If in light of this email note you wish to discuss the issue further prior to concluding the Consensus Call, please indicate this as well.
Thank you all! A second email relating to a Consensus Call for the separate issue of language relating to Working Group Consensus Levels will follow shortly.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
* One World. One Internet. *
From: Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com> Date: Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 6:13 PM To: "'Shatan, Gregory S.'" <GShatan@reedsmith.com>, 'Amr Elsadr' <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft
Thanks Greg and Amr. This looks like a good solution to me as well.
Kind regards,
RA
Ron Andruff RNA Partners 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 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>
<Proposed Language f#1D7F33E.doc>
Dear Amr, The Board does not have to approve changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures. They do have to approve changes to the ICANN Bylaws, which may result in changes to the Operating Procedures, although that does not apply in this case. Thus, the changes the Council approved with respect to resubmission of motions are considered to be final. I have reviewed the current version of the procedures document at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-26mar14-en.pdf and the section 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 (page 11 and 12 of the document) on resubmission of a motion and cannot see any redlining. Do you have access to a version that shows redlines? If so, can you point me to it? There should only be one version of the document posted and it should be the final version. There was, however, when the Council was considering the changes a draft version that contained redlining. However, the final version is the one posted at the link listed above. Best regards, Julie From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Date: Friday, May 2, 2014 6:11 AM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) Yeah, I think so. Thanks Mary. It works out fine in both cases anyway. One more question, and excuse my inexperience :); Does the ICANN board need to approve changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures after they are approved by the Council? Does that have anything to do with the resubmission language still being in red-line in the operating procedures document? Thanks again, Mary. Amr On May 1, 2014, at 4:02 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Amr, yes; any proposed changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures, including to the WG Guidelines, need to go out for public comment and that¹s the rub with the interplay here between the Resubmission of a Motion language (published for public comment and approved) and the Waiver/Exception proposal (not yet published). It may be awkward to send the Resubmission language out AGAIN for public comment so the more streamlined course of action would be to address the overlap in the Waiver/Exception language now. After the Waiver/Exception language is approved by the SCI, it will then need to go out for public comment which we recommend be done together with any other proposed changes the SCI may wish to make, e.g. Voting by Email.
I hope this helps clarify ?
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
* One World. One Internet. *
From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Date: Thursday, May 1, 2014 at 4:58 AM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft)
Thanks Mary. One question: Wouldn¹t the proposed changes here need to be published for public comment as well? There are still changes being recommended to the operating procedures, right? Does it make a difference which section the reference to resubmitted motions lands?
Thanks again.
Amr
On Apr 30, 2014, at 8:56 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear SCI members,
Please find attached the latest version of the proposed language relating to Waivers/Exceptions for motions in the GNSO Operating Procedures. As noted in last week¹s call, the Consensus Call for this issue will be conducted via this email list.
Note, however, that we are suggesting a slight change to the language circulated by Greg and discussed in the email thread below. In reviewing the proposed language prior to circulation for a Consensus Call, we noted that the suggested Explanation in Greg¹s latest email (below) would entail a further change to the revised Resubmission of a Motion language in the GNSO Operating Procedures, which initial revisions were approved by the GNSO Council (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201403). As any further changes will have to be published for public comment, an alternative solution might be to add a sentence to the proposed Waivers/Exception language to address the concern voiced by Amr in an earlier email.
Please indicate whether you, on behalf of your respective stakeholder groups and/or constituencies, support or do not support the attached proposed language. If in light of this email note you wish to discuss the issue further prior to concluding the Consensus Call, please indicate this as well.
Thank you all! A second email relating to a Consensus Call for the separate issue of language relating to Working Group Consensus Levels will follow shortly.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
* One World. One Internet. *
From: Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com> Date: Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 6:13 PM To: "'Shatan, Gregory S.'" <GShatan@reedsmith.com>, 'Amr Elsadr' <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft
Thanks Greg and Amr. This looks like a good solution to me as well.
Kind regards,
RA
Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com <http://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:
³1. 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.²
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 I¹ve brought this up repetitively and I hate being a nag, but there¹s 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:
³1. 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.²
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 can¹t 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 Marika¹s 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 ³accepting² 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 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 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 <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 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 <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>
<Proposed Language f#1D7F33E.doc>
Thanks for the explanation and the link Julie. The version of the GNSO Operating Procedures I was looking at is an older one found on this page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/44157. Thanks again. Amr On May 2, 2014, at 3:43 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Amr,
The Board does not have to approve changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures. They do have to approve changes to the ICANN Bylaws, which may result in changes to the Operating Procedures, although that does not apply in this case. Thus, the changes the Council approved with respect to resubmission of motions are considered to be final. I have reviewed the current version of the procedures document at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-26mar14-en.pdf and the section 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 (page 11 and 12 of the document) on resubmission of a motion and cannot see any redlining. Do you have access to a version that shows redlines? If so, can you point me to it? There should only be one version of the document posted and it should be the final version. There was, however, when the Council was considering the changes a draft version that contained redlining. However, the final version is the one posted at the link listed above.
Best regards, Julie
From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Date: Friday, May 2, 2014 6:11 AM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft)
Yeah…, I think so. Thanks Mary. It works out fine in both cases anyway.
One more question…, and excuse my inexperience :); Does the ICANN board need to approve changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures after they are approved by the Council? Does that have anything to do with the resubmission language still being in red-line in the operating procedures document?
Thanks again, Mary.
Amr
On May 1, 2014, at 4:02 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Amr, yes; any proposed changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures, including to the WG Guidelines, need to go out for public comment – and that’s the rub with the interplay here between the Resubmission of a Motion language (published for public comment and approved) and the Waiver/Exception proposal (not yet published). It may be awkward to send the Resubmission language out AGAIN for public comment so the more streamlined course of action would be to address the overlap in the Waiver/Exception language now. After the Waiver/Exception language is approved by the SCI, it will then need to go out for public comment – which we recommend be done together with any other proposed changes the SCI may wish to make, e.g. Voting by Email.
I hope this helps clarify … ?
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
* One World. One Internet. *
From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Date: Thursday, May 1, 2014 at 4:58 AM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft)
Thanks Mary. One question: Wouldn’t the proposed changes here need to be published for public comment as well? There are still changes being recommended to the operating procedures, right? Does it make a difference which section the reference to resubmitted motions lands?
Thanks again.
Amr
On Apr 30, 2014, at 8:56 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear SCI members,
Please find attached the latest version of the proposed language relating to Waivers/Exceptions for motions in the GNSO Operating Procedures. As noted in last week’s call, the Consensus Call for this issue will be conducted via this email list.
Note, however, that we are suggesting a slight change to the language circulated by Greg and discussed in the email thread below. In reviewing the proposed language prior to circulation for a Consensus Call, we noted that the suggested Explanation in Greg’s latest email (below) would entail a further change to the revised Resubmission of a Motion language in the GNSO Operating Procedures, which initial revisions were approved by the GNSO Council (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201403). As any further changes will have to be published for public comment, an alternative solution might be to add a sentence to the proposed Waivers/Exception language to address the concern voiced by Amr in an earlier email.
Please indicate whether you, on behalf of your respective stakeholder groups and/or constituencies, support or do not support the attached proposed language. If in light of this email note you wish to discuss the issue further prior to concluding the Consensus Call, please indicate this as well.
Thank you all! A second email relating to a Consensus Call for the separate issue of language relating to Working Group Consensus Levels will follow shortly.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
* One World. One Internet. *
From: Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com> Date: Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 6:13 PM To: "'Shatan, Gregory S.'" <GShatan@reedsmith.com>, 'Amr Elsadr' <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft
Thanks Greg and Amr. This looks like a good solution to me as well.
Kind regards,
RA
Ron Andruff RNA Partners 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 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>
<Proposed Language f#1D7F33E.doc>
Amr, Thank so much for pointing me to the document. That appears to be the version (based on the date) that was posted for GNSO Council review when it was considering the changes, hence the redlining. Best regards, Julie From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Date: Friday, May 2, 2014 10:11 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) Thanks for the explanation and the link Julie. The version of the GNSO Operating Procedures I was looking at is an older one found on this page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/44157. Thanks again. Amr On May 2, 2014, at 3:43 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Amr,
The Board does not have to approve changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures. They do have to approve changes to the ICANN Bylaws, which may result in changes to the Operating Procedures, although that does not apply in this case. Thus, the changes the Council approved with respect to resubmission of motions are considered to be final. I have reviewed the current version of the procedures document at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-26mar14-en.pdf and the section 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 (page 11 and 12 of the document) on resubmission of a motion and cannot see any redlining. Do you have access to a version that shows redlines? If so, can you point me to it? There should only be one version of the document posted and it should be the final version. There was, however, when the Council was considering the changes a draft version that contained redlining. However, the final version is the one posted at the link listed above.
Best regards, Julie
From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Date: Friday, May 2, 2014 6:11 AM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft)
Yeah, I think so. Thanks Mary. It works out fine in both cases anyway.
One more question, and excuse my inexperience :); Does the ICANN board need to approve changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures after they are approved by the Council? Does that have anything to do with the resubmission language still being in red-line in the operating procedures document?
Thanks again, Mary.
Amr
On May 1, 2014, at 4:02 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Amr, yes; any proposed changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures, including to the WG Guidelines, need to go out for public comment and that¹s the rub with the interplay here between the Resubmission of a Motion language (published for public comment and approved) and the Waiver/Exception proposal (not yet published). It may be awkward to send the Resubmission language out AGAIN for public comment so the more streamlined course of action would be to address the overlap in the Waiver/Exception language now. After the Waiver/Exception language is approved by the SCI, it will then need to go out for public comment which we recommend be done together with any other proposed changes the SCI may wish to make, e.g. Voting by Email.
I hope this helps clarify ?
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
* One World. One Internet. *
From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Date: Thursday, May 1, 2014 at 4:58 AM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft)
Thanks Mary. One question: Wouldn¹t the proposed changes here need to be published for public comment as well? There are still changes being recommended to the operating procedures, right? Does it make a difference which section the reference to resubmitted motions lands?
Thanks again.
Amr
On Apr 30, 2014, at 8:56 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear SCI members,
Please find attached the latest version of the proposed language relating to Waivers/Exceptions for motions in the GNSO Operating Procedures. As noted in last week¹s call, the Consensus Call for this issue will be conducted via this email list.
Note, however, that we are suggesting a slight change to the language circulated by Greg and discussed in the email thread below. In reviewing the proposed language prior to circulation for a Consensus Call, we noted that the suggested Explanation in Greg¹s latest email (below) would entail a further change to the revised Resubmission of a Motion language in the GNSO Operating Procedures, which initial revisions were approved by the GNSO Council (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201403). As any further changes will have to be published for public comment, an alternative solution might be to add a sentence to the proposed Waivers/Exception language to address the concern voiced by Amr in an earlier email.
Please indicate whether you, on behalf of your respective stakeholder groups and/or constituencies, support or do not support the attached proposed language. If in light of this email note you wish to discuss the issue further prior to concluding the Consensus Call, please indicate this as well.
Thank you all! A second email relating to a Consensus Call for the separate issue of language relating to Working Group Consensus Levels will follow shortly.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
* One World. One Internet. *
From: Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com> Date: Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 6:13 PM To: "'Shatan, Gregory S.'" <GShatan@reedsmith.com>, 'Amr Elsadr' <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft
Thanks Greg and Amr. This looks like a good solution to me as well.
Kind regards,
RA
Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com <http://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:
³1. 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.²
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 I¹ve brought this up repetitively and I hate being a nag, but there¹s 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:
³1. 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.²
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 can¹t 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 Marika¹s 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 ³accepting² 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 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 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 <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 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 <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>
<Proposed Language f#1D7F33E.doc>
I could not open the later version, either using Julie's link or directly from the page http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures (accessed from the Council Activities dropdown menu at http://gnso.icann.org/en/). I get an "unknown file type" error. From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 10:12 AM To: Julie Hedlund Cc: Mary Wong; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) Thanks for the explanation and the link Julie. The version of the GNSO Operating Procedures I was looking at is an older one found on this page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/44157. Thanks again. Amr On May 2, 2014, at 3:43 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Amr, The Board does not have to approve changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures. They do have to approve changes to the ICANN Bylaws, which may result in changes to the Operating Procedures, although that does not apply in this case. Thus, the changes the Council approved with respect to resubmission of motions are considered to be final. I have reviewed the current version of the procedures document at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-26mar14-en.pdf and the section 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 (page 11 and 12 of the document) on resubmission of a motion and cannot see any redlining. Do you have access to a version that shows redlines? If so, can you point me to it? There should only be one version of the document posted and it should be the final version. There was, however, when the Council was considering the changes a draft version that contained redlining. However, the final version is the one posted at the link listed above. Best regards, Julie From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Date: Friday, May 2, 2014 6:11 AM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Cc: "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: Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) Yeah..., I think so. Thanks Mary. It works out fine in both cases anyway. One more question..., and excuse my inexperience :); Does the ICANN board need to approve changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures after they are approved by the Council? Does that have anything to do with the resubmission language still being in red-line in the operating procedures document? Thanks again, Mary. Amr On May 1, 2014, at 4:02 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Amr, yes; any proposed changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures, including to the WG Guidelines, need to go out for public comment - and that's the rub with the interplay here between the Resubmission of a Motion language (published for public comment and approved) and the Waiver/Exception proposal (not yet published). It may be awkward to send the Resubmission language out AGAIN for public comment so the more streamlined course of action would be to address the overlap in the Waiver/Exception language now. After the Waiver/Exception language is approved by the SCI, it will then need to go out for public comment - which we recommend be done together with any other proposed changes the SCI may wish to make, e.g. Voting by Email. I hope this helps clarify ... ? Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> * One World. One Internet. * From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Date: Thursday, May 1, 2014 at 4:58 AM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Cc: "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: Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) Thanks Mary. One question: Wouldn't the proposed changes here need to be published for public comment as well? There are still changes being recommended to the operating procedures, right? Does it make a difference which section the reference to resubmitted motions lands? Thanks again. Amr On Apr 30, 2014, at 8:56 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: Dear SCI members, Please find attached the latest version of the proposed language relating to Waivers/Exceptions for motions in the GNSO Operating Procedures. As noted in last week's call, the Consensus Call for this issue will be conducted via this email list. Note, however, that we are suggesting a slight change to the language circulated by Greg and discussed in the email thread below. In reviewing the proposed language prior to circulation for a Consensus Call, we noted that the suggested Explanation in Greg's latest email (below) would entail a further change to the revised Resubmission of a Motion language in the GNSO Operating Procedures, which initial revisions were approved by the GNSO Council (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201403). As any further changes will have to be published for public comment, an alternative solution might be to add a sentence to the proposed Waivers/Exception language to address the concern voiced by Amr in an earlier email. Please indicate whether you, on behalf of your respective stakeholder groups and/or constituencies, support or do not support the attached proposed language. If in light of this email note you wish to discuss the issue further prior to concluding the Consensus Call, please indicate this as well. Thank you all! A second email relating to a Consensus Call for the separate issue of language relating to Working Group Consensus Levels will follow shortly. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> * One World. One Internet. * From: Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>> Date: Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 6:13 PM To: "'Shatan, Gregory S.'" <GShatan@reedsmith.com<mailto:GShatan@reedsmith.com>>, 'Amr Elsadr' <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "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: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft Thanks Greg and Amr. This looks like a good solution to me as well. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com<http://www.rnapartners.com/> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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) 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> <Proposed Language f#1D7F33E.doc>
Greg, You should get an option to either save the file or to choose an application, in which case choose Adobe Acrobat and click "open." If you don't get that option or it doesn't work for you, please let me know. Thanks! Julie From: <Shatan>, "Gregory S." <GShatan@reedsmith.com> Date: Friday, May 2, 2014 10:27 AM To: 'Amr Elsadr' <aelsadr@egyptig.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: RE: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) I could not open the later version, either using Julie¹s link or directly from the page http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures (accessed from the Council Activities dropdown menu at http://gnso.icann.org/en/). I get an ³unknown file type² error. From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 10:12 AM To: Julie Hedlund Cc: Mary Wong; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) Thanks for the explanation and the link Julie. The version of the GNSO Operating Procedures I was looking at is an older one found on this page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/44157. Thanks again. Amr On May 2, 2014, at 3:43 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote: Dear Amr, The Board does not have to approve changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures. They do have to approve changes to the ICANN Bylaws, which may result in changes to the Operating Procedures, although that does not apply in this case. Thus, the changes the Council approved with respect to resubmission of motions are considered to be final. I have reviewed the current version of the procedures document at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-26mar14-en.pdf and the section 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 (page 11 and 12 of the document) on resubmission of a motion and cannot see any redlining. Do you have access to a version that shows redlines? If so, can you point me to it? There should only be one version of the document posted and it should be the final version. There was, however, when the Council was considering the changes a draft version that contained redlining. However, the final version is the one posted at the link listed above. Best regards, Julie From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Date: Friday, May 2, 2014 6:11 AM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) Yeah, I think so. Thanks Mary. It works out fine in both cases anyway. One more question, and excuse my inexperience :); Does the ICANN board need to approve changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures after they are approved by the Council? Does that have anything to do with the resubmission language still being in red-line in the operating procedures document? Thanks again, Mary. Amr On May 1, 2014, at 4:02 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote: Hi Amr, yes; any proposed changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures, including to the WG Guidelines, need to go out for public comment and that¹s the rub with the interplay here between the Resubmission of a Motion language (published for public comment and approved) and the Waiver/Exception proposal (not yet published). It may be awkward to send the Resubmission language out AGAIN for public comment so the more streamlined course of action would be to address the overlap in the Waiver/Exception language now. After the Waiver/Exception language is approved by the SCI, it will then need to go out for public comment which we recommend be done together with any other proposed changes the SCI may wish to make, e.g. Voting by Email. I hope this helps clarify ? Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org * One World. One Internet. * From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Date: Thursday, May 1, 2014 at 4:58 AM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft)
Thanks Mary. One question: Wouldn¹t the proposed changes here need to be published for public comment as well? There are still changes being recommended to the operating procedures, right? Does it make a difference which section the reference to resubmitted motions lands?
Thanks again.
Amr
On Apr 30, 2014, at 8:56 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear SCI members,
Please find attached the latest version of the proposed language relating to Waivers/Exceptions for motions in the GNSO Operating Procedures. As noted in last week¹s call, the Consensus Call for this issue will be conducted via this email list.
Note, however, that we are suggesting a slight change to the language circulated by Greg and discussed in the email thread below. In reviewing the proposed language prior to circulation for a Consensus Call, we noted that the suggested Explanation in Greg¹s latest email (below) would entail a further change to the revised Resubmission of a Motion language in the GNSO Operating Procedures, which initial revisions were approved by the GNSO Council (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201403 <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201403> ). As any further changes will have to be published for public comment, an alternative solution might be to add a sentence to the proposed Waivers/Exception language to address the concern voiced by Amr in an earlier email.
Please indicate whether you, on behalf of your respective stakeholder groups and/or constituencies, support or do not support the attached proposed language. If in light of this email note you wish to discuss the issue further prior to concluding the Consensus Call, please indicate this as well.
Thank you all! A second email relating to a Consensus Call for the separate issue of language relating to Working Group Consensus Levels will follow shortly.
Cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
* One World. One Internet. *
From: Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com <mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>
Date: Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 6:13 PM To: "'Shatan, Gregory S.'" <GShatan@reedsmith.com <mailto:GShatan@reedsmith.com> >, 'Amr Elsadr' <aelsadr@egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org> > Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>
, "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: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft
Thanks Greg and Amr. This looks like a good solution to me as well.
Kind regards,
RA
Ron Andruff
RNA Partners
www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com/>
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> [mailto: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 <mailto: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:
³1. 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.²
Thoughts?
Greg
From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org <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 I¹ve brought this up repetitively and I hate being a nag, but there¹s 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:
³1. 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.²
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 can¹t 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 Marika¹s 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 ³accepting² 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 <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 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 <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 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 <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>
<Proposed Language f#1D7F33E.doc>
Ron, Mary, et al, Unlike the WG Consensus Guidelines proposal, I do not believe this waiver issue is ripe for Consensus Call. There seem to be some questions “swirling” that require clarification – including my question about the time of submission of “reports” and the issue of public comment. It seems the next call may be scheduled in the middle of INTA in Hong Kong. Greg and I will need to check this. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01CF6941.5A2E53D0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | Suite 700 One South Church Avenue | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> [cid:image002.jpg@01CF6941.5A2E53D0] Lewis and Roca LLP is now Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP. From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 11:56 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) Dear SCI members, Please find attached the latest version of the proposed language relating to Waivers/Exceptions for motions in the GNSO Operating Procedures. As noted in last week’s call, the Consensus Call for this issue will be conducted via this email list. Note, however, that we are suggesting a slight change to the language circulated by Greg and discussed in the email thread below. In reviewing the proposed language prior to circulation for a Consensus Call, we noted that the suggested Explanation in Greg’s latest email (below) would entail a further change to the revised Resubmission of a Motion language in the GNSO Operating Procedures, which initial revisions were approved by the GNSO Council (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201403). As any further changes will have to be published for public comment, an alternative solution might be to add a sentence to the proposed Waivers/Exception language to address the concern voiced by Amr in an earlier email. Please indicate whether you, on behalf of your respective stakeholder groups and/or constituencies, support or do not support the attached proposed language. If in light of this email note you wish to discuss the issue further prior to concluding the Consensus Call, please indicate this as well. Thank you all! A second email relating to a Consensus Call for the separate issue of language relating to Working Group Consensus Levels will follow shortly. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> * One World. One Internet. * From: Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>> Date: Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 6:13 PM To: "'Shatan, Gregory S.'" <GShatan@reedsmith.com<mailto:GShatan@reedsmith.com>>, 'Amr Elsadr' <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "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: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft Thanks Greg and Amr. This looks like a good solution to me as well. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com<http://www.rnapartners.com> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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) 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> ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this message or any attachments 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.
Dear all, My legal assistant advises the SCI call next week would be 3 am May 14 in Hong Kong so unfortunately I cannot participate. I do not know whether Greg is also attending INTA. Thomas, Avri, and I will be doing a call on e—voting tomorrow and perhaps one of them or Mary can report as to progress on that issue. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01CF6943.A8EF3CD0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | Suite 700 One South Church Avenue | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> [cid:image002.jpg@01CF6943.A8EF3CD0] Lewis and Roca LLP is now Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP. From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 3:39 PM To: 'Mary Wong'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: RE: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) Ron, Mary, et al, Unlike the WG Consensus Guidelines proposal, I do not believe this waiver issue is ripe for Consensus Call. There seem to be some questions “swirling” that require clarification – including my question about the time of submission of “reports” and the issue of public comment. It seems the next call may be scheduled in the middle of INTA in Hong Kong. Greg and I will need to check this. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01CF6943.A8EF3CD0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | Suite 700 One South Church Avenue | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> [cid:image002.jpg@01CF6943.A8EF3CD0] Lewis and Roca LLP is now Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP. From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 11:56 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) Dear SCI members, Please find attached the latest version of the proposed language relating to Waivers/Exceptions for motions in the GNSO Operating Procedures. As noted in last week’s call, the Consensus Call for this issue will be conducted via this email list. Note, however, that we are suggesting a slight change to the language circulated by Greg and discussed in the email thread below. In reviewing the proposed language prior to circulation for a Consensus Call, we noted that the suggested Explanation in Greg’s latest email (below) would entail a further change to the revised Resubmission of a Motion language in the GNSO Operating Procedures, which initial revisions were approved by the GNSO Council (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201403). As any further changes will have to be published for public comment, an alternative solution might be to add a sentence to the proposed Waivers/Exception language to address the concern voiced by Amr in an earlier email. Please indicate whether you, on behalf of your respective stakeholder groups and/or constituencies, support or do not support the attached proposed language. If in light of this email note you wish to discuss the issue further prior to concluding the Consensus Call, please indicate this as well. Thank you all! A second email relating to a Consensus Call for the separate issue of language relating to Working Group Consensus Levels will follow shortly. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> * One World. One Internet. * From: Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>> Date: Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 6:13 PM To: "'Shatan, Gregory S.'" <GShatan@reedsmith.com<mailto:GShatan@reedsmith.com>>, 'Amr Elsadr' <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "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: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft Thanks Greg and Amr. This looks like a good solution to me as well. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com<http://www.rnapartners.com> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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) 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> ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this message or any attachments 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. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this message or any attachments 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.
Hi, I was ready to vote in favour of this recommendation. Anne, could you please clarify the problems you foresee with the time of submission of “reports” and public comments? I’m afraid I may have missed something important. Thanks. Amr On May 7, 2014, at 12:39 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> wrote:
Ron, Mary, et al,
Unlike the WG Consensus Guidelines proposal, I do not believe this waiver issue is ripe for Consensus Call. There seem to be some questions “swirling” that require clarification – including my question about the time of submission of “reports” and the issue of public comment. It seems the next call may be scheduled in the middle of INTA in Hong Kong. Greg and I will need to check this. Thank you, Anne
<image001.gif> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | Suite 700 One South Church Avenue | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com
<image002.jpg> Lewis and Roca LLP is now Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP.
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 11:56 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft)
Dear SCI members,
Please find attached the latest version of the proposed language relating to Waivers/Exceptions for motions in the GNSO Operating Procedures. As noted in last week’s call, the Consensus Call for this issue will be conducted via this email list.
Note, however, that we are suggesting a slight change to the language circulated by Greg and discussed in the email thread below. In reviewing the proposed language prior to circulation for a Consensus Call, we noted that the suggested Explanation in Greg’s latest email (below) would entail a further change to the revised Resubmission of a Motion language in the GNSO Operating Procedures, which initial revisions were approved by the GNSO Council (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201403). As any further changes will have to be published for public comment, an alternative solution might be to add a sentence to the proposed Waivers/Exception language to address the concern voiced by Amr in an earlier email.
Please indicate whether you, on behalf of your respective stakeholder groups and/or constituencies, support or do not support the attached proposed language. If in light of this email note you wish to discuss the issue further prior to concluding the Consensus Call, please indicate this as well.
Thank you all! A second email relating to a Consensus Call for the separate issue of language relating to Working Group Consensus Levels will follow shortly.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
* One World. One Internet. *
From: Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com> Date: Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 6:13 PM To: "'Shatan, Gregory S.'" <GShatan@reedsmith.com>, 'Amr Elsadr' <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft
Thanks Greg and Amr. This looks like a good solution to me as well.
Kind regards,
RA
Ron Andruff RNA Partners 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 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>
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this message or any attachments 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.
All: Based on today's call and discussion on the email list, I am circulating the latest version of the Proposed Language for Waiver/Exceptions to the 10-day Motion Deadline. The Proposed Language is in italics in the attached documents. New language responding to comments by Anne Aikman-Scalese on the list has been added (in track changes). Also, in this version, I have removed language recently suggested to clarify that "resubmitted motions" are also eligible for the waiver. This language had been suggested due to a parenthetical clause in Section 4.3.3, which made it seem as if resubmitted motions would not be eligible for the waiver. Instead, I have proposed that the clause in 4.3.3. be removed. A revised version of Section 4.3.3 is also attached. It was the sense of those on the call that we should get to the root of the ambiguity, even though it meant that the new language in 4.3.3. would also need to be part of the public comment process. I look forward to any thoughts and comments you may have. Best regards, Greg Shatan Gregory S. Shatan Partner 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 From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 2:56 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) Dear SCI members, Please find attached the latest version of the proposed language relating to Waivers/Exceptions for motions in the GNSO Operating Procedures. As noted in last week's call, the Consensus Call for this issue will be conducted via this email list. Note, however, that we are suggesting a slight change to the language circulated by Greg and discussed in the email thread below. In reviewing the proposed language prior to circulation for a Consensus Call, we noted that the suggested Explanation in Greg's latest email (below) would entail a further change to the revised Resubmission of a Motion language in the GNSO Operating Procedures, which initial revisions were approved by the GNSO Council (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201403). As any further changes will have to be published for public comment, an alternative solution might be to add a sentence to the proposed Waivers/Exception language to address the concern voiced by Amr in an earlier email. Please indicate whether you, on behalf of your respective stakeholder groups and/or constituencies, support or do not support the attached proposed language. If in light of this email note you wish to discuss the issue further prior to concluding the Consensus Call, please indicate this as well. Thank you all! A second email relating to a Consensus Call for the separate issue of language relating to Working Group Consensus Levels will follow shortly. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> * One World. One Internet. * From: Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>> Date: Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 6:13 PM To: "'Shatan, Gregory S.'" <GShatan@reedsmith.com<mailto:GShatan@reedsmith.com>>, 'Amr Elsadr' <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "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: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft Thanks Greg and Amr. This looks like a good solution to me as well. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com<http://www.rnapartners.com> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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) 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>
Thank you for the rapid turnaround on this, Greg. It would be very helpful is Committee members would bring their comments to this draft to the list prior to our next meeting at month end. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff ONR Consulting, Inc. <http://www.ICANNSherpa.com> www.ICANNSherpa.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Shatan, Gregory S. Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 16:08 To: 'Mary Wong'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: RE: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) All: Based on today's call and discussion on the email list, I am circulating the latest version of the Proposed Language for Waiver/Exceptions to the 10-day Motion Deadline. The Proposed Language is in italics in the attached documents. New language responding to comments by Anne Aikman-Scalese on the list has been added (in track changes). Also, in this version, I have removed language recently suggested to clarify that "resubmitted motions" are also eligible for the waiver. This language had been suggested due to a parenthetical clause in Section 4.3.3, which made it seem as if resubmitted motions would not be eligible for the waiver. Instead, I have proposed that the clause in 4.3.3. be removed. A revised version of Section 4.3.3 is also attached. It was the sense of those on the call that we should get to the root of the ambiguity, even though it meant that the new language in 4.3.3. would also need to be part of the public comment process. I look forward to any thoughts and comments you may have. Best regards, Greg Shatan Gregory S. Shatan Partner 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> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 2:56 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) Dear SCI members, Please find attached the latest version of the proposed language relating to Waivers/Exceptions for motions in the GNSO Operating Procedures. As noted in last week's call, the Consensus Call for this issue will be conducted via this email list. Note, however, that we are suggesting a slight change to the language circulated by Greg and discussed in the email thread below. In reviewing the proposed language prior to circulation for a Consensus Call, we noted that the suggested Explanation in Greg's latest email (below) would entail a further change to the revised Resubmission of a Motion language in the GNSO Operating Procedures, which initial revisions were approved by the GNSO Council (see <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201403> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201403). As any further changes will have to be published for public comment, an alternative solution might be to add a sentence to the proposed Waivers/Exception language to address the concern voiced by Amr in an earlier email. Please indicate whether you, on behalf of your respective stakeholder groups and/or constituencies, support or do not support the attached proposed language. If in light of this email note you wish to discuss the issue further prior to concluding the Consensus Call, please indicate this as well. Thank you all! A second email relating to a Consensus Call for the separate issue of language relating to Working Group Consensus Levels will follow shortly. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> mary.wong@icann.org * One World. One Internet. * From: Ron Andruff < <mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com> randruff@rnapartners.com> Date: Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 6:13 PM To: "'Shatan, Gregory S.'" < <mailto:GShatan@reedsmith.com> GShatan@reedsmith.com>, 'Amr Elsadr' < <mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org> aelsadr@egyptig.org> Cc: Marika Konings < <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> marika.konings@icann.org>, " <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: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft 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: <mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [ <mailto: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; <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> 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> mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 4:53 PM To: Shatan, Gregory S. Cc: Marika Konings; <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> 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> mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:34 AM To: Shatan, Gregory S.; <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> 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 (6)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Amr Elsadr -
Julie Hedlund -
Mary Wong -
Ron Andruff -
Shatan, Gregory S.