Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP
Dear All, As discussed yesterday, please find attached for your review the suggested modifications to the last version of the language concerning the termination or suspension of a PDP. With best regards, Marika
Thank you for your prompt action in getting this option out for the Committee, Marika. I encourage all members to review it and bring their thoughts back to the list to see if we can nail the final language down in advance of our next call. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA <http://www.rnapartners.com> Partners, Inc. _____ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 6:10 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Dear All, As discussed yesterday, please find attached for your review the suggested modifications to the last version of the language concerning the termination or suspension of a PDP. With best regards, Marika
Marisa, I have taken your language and condensed it a bit as well as trying to clarify that if there is no recommendation from the WG before the Council, then there would have to be a properly seconded motion in order to require the Council to seek public comment. I don't think anyone was intending to completely eliminate the requirement for a written report when the WG was making the recommendation. That written Termination Report or Suspension Report was mandatory where the recommendation for suspension or termination came from the WG. That improvement was at the very heart of this initiative and so that language has been added back where you had deleted it. On a more minor note, I also noticed that the earlier paragraphs in this same section refer to "PDP Team" and not "PDP Working Group". So I changed all the references to PDP Team. It seems it should be one or the other consistently throughout unless there is some difference I do not appreciate between a PDP Team and PDP WG. I also think it would be fine for all references to be to PDP WG and that is the term I hear used more often. Attached is a new Feb 8 draft with the changes accepted. While working on this, I ended up losing track of the status of my redline and would appreciate it if you could run a comparison btween this and the language the SCI reviewed in its last call so that all members can see the proposed changes in my draft. Thank you, Anne [cid:673301100@09022013-0625]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700 One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRLaw.com> • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:10 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Dear All, As discussed yesterday, please find attached for your review the suggested modifications to the last version of the language concerning the termination or suspension of a PDP. With best regards, Marika ________________________________ For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
Sorry Marika - I don't know why I typed "s" instead of "k" in your name - it's been a long week - I apologize! Anne [cid:447003300@09022013-0644]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700 One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRLaw.com> * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 5:26 PM To: 'Marika Konings'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Marisa, I have taken your language and condensed it a bit as well as trying to clarify that if there is no recommendation from the WG before the Council, then there would have to be a properly seconded motion in order to require the Council to seek public comment. I don't think anyone was intending to completely eliminate the requirement for a written report when the WG was making the recommendation. That written Termination Report or Suspension Report was mandatory where the recommendation for suspension or termination came from the WG. That improvement was at the very heart of this initiative and so that language has been added back where you had deleted it. On a more minor note, I also noticed that the earlier paragraphs in this same section refer to "PDP Team" and not "PDP Working Group". So I changed all the references to PDP Team. It seems it should be one or the other consistently throughout unless there is some difference I do not appreciate between a PDP Team and PDP WG. I also think it would be fine for all references to be to PDP WG and that is the term I hear used more often. Attached is a new Feb 8 draft with the changes accepted. While working on this, I ended up losing track of the status of my redline and would appreciate it if you could run a comparison btween this and the language the SCI reviewed in its last call so that all members can see the proposed changes in my draft. Thank you, Anne [cid:447003300@09022013-064B]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700 One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRLaw.com> * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:10 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Dear All, As discussed yesterday, please find attached for your review the suggested modifications to the last version of the language concerning the termination or suspension of a PDP. With best regards, Marika ________________________________ For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
Anne, As requested, please find attached the redline comparing the previous version from J. Scott with the latest one you circulated. A couple of comments: * PDP Team is used throughout the PDP Manual as, even though the WG model is currently the preferred option to conduct a PDP, it foresees the possibility for the GNSO Council to choose another model should it decide so (e.g. Committee of the whole), hence the use of the term 'PDP Team'. * There is a timing issue with having a seconded motion before a public comment period can be opened. The current practice of the GNSO Council is to only allow for one deferral of a motion, while a public comment forum may cover at least two Council meetings. It is not clear to me why a properly seconded motion would be needed before a public comment forum may be initiated (a public comment forum can be initiated by the Council or WG at any time it wants, there is no motion required to do so). * Instead of mandating a written report, I had suggested that in order to allow for flexibility, there would be more discretion on the part of the Council liaison and/or WG to decide on the format in which they 'convey to the GNSO Council the reasons for the recommended action to be taken and, if applicable, the points of view represented in the Working Group and the consensus status (as defined by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines) at the time such action is recommended' (for example, this could be in the form of an email, letter or oral update to the GNSO Council). Especially since a safeguard has been added to require a written report at the request of any Council member, AC or Board. If the SCI insists on requiring a 'Termination Report' or 'Suspension Report', it will be important to define which information is expected to be contained in such report as it is currently nowhere defined in the PDP manual. With best regards, Marika From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrlaw.com> Date: Saturday 9 February 2013 01:25 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: RE: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Marisa, I have taken your language and condensed it a bit as well as trying to clarify that if there is no recommendation from the WG before the Council, then there would have to be a properly seconded motion in order to require the Council to seek public comment. I don't think anyone was intending to completely eliminate the requirement for a written report when the WG was making the recommendation. That written Termination Report or Suspension Report was mandatory where the recommendation for suspension or termination came from the WG. That improvement was at the very heart of this initiative and so that language has been added back where you had deleted it. On a more minor note, I also noticed that the earlier paragraphs in this same section refer to "PDP Team" and not "PDP Working Group". So I changed all the references to PDP Team. It seems it should be one or the other consistently throughout unless there is some difference I do not appreciate between a PDP Team and PDP WG. I also think it would be fine for all references to be to PDP WG and that is the term I hear used more often. Attached is a new Feb 8 draft with the changes accepted. While working on this, I ended up losing track of the status of my redline and would appreciate it if you could run a comparison btween this and the language the SCI reviewed in its last call so that all members can see the proposed changes in my draft. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP Suite 700 One South Church Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman <http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete theoriginal message. From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:10 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Dear All, As discussed yesterday, please find attached for your review the suggested modifications to the last version of the language concerning the termination or suspension of a PDP. With best regards, Marika For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com <http://www.lewisandroca.com/> . Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
Dear all, Thank you, Marika, for the clarifying points noted below. I would particularly like to draw Committee Members' attention to the last sentence under the 3rd bullet: "If the SCI insists on requiring a 'Termination Report' or 'Suspension Report', it will be important to define which information is expected to be contained in such report as it is currently nowhere defined in the PDP manual.". This is an important consideration in finalizing the suspension/termination language. Thank you, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA <http://www.rnapartners.com> Partners, Inc. _____ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 4:27 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Anne, As requested, please find attached the redline comparing the previous version from J. Scott with the latest one you circulated. A couple of comments: * PDP Team is used throughout the PDP Manual as, even though the WG model is currently the preferred option to conduct a PDP, it foresees the possibility for the GNSO Council to choose another model should it decide so (e.g. Committee of the whole), hence the use of the term 'PDP Team'. * There is a timing issue with having a seconded motion before a public comment period can be opened. The current practice of the GNSO Council is to only allow for one deferral of a motion, while a public comment forum may cover at least two Council meetings. It is not clear to me why a properly seconded motion would be needed before a public comment forum may be initiated (a public comment forum can be initiated by the Council or WG at any time it wants, there is no motion required to do so). * Instead of mandating a written report, I had suggested that in order to allow for flexibility, there would be more discretion on the part of the Council liaison and/or WG to decide on the format in which they 'convey to the GNSO Council the reasons for the recommended action to be taken and, if applicable, the points of view represented in the Working Group and the consensus status (as defined by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines) at the time such action is recommended' (for example, this could be in the form of an email, letter or oral update to the GNSO Council). Especially since a safeguard has been added to require a written report at the request of any Council member, AC or Board. If the SCI insists on requiring a 'Termination Report' or 'Suspension Report', it will be important to define which information is expected to be contained in such report as it is currently nowhere defined in the PDP manual. With best regards, Marika From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrlaw.com> Date: Saturday 9 February 2013 01:25 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: RE: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Marisa, I have taken your language and condensed it a bit as well as trying to clarify that if there is no recommendation from the WG before the Council, then there would have to be a properly seconded motion in order to require the Council to seek public comment. I don't think anyone was intending to completely eliminate the requirement for a written report when the WG was making the recommendation. That written Termination Report or Suspension Report was mandatory where the recommendation for suspension or termination came from the WG. That improvement was at the very heart of this initiative and so that language has been added back where you had deleted it. On a more minor note, I also noticed that the earlier paragraphs in this same section refer to "PDP Team" and not "PDP Working Group". So I changed all the references to PDP Team. It seems it should be one or the other consistently throughout unless there is some difference I do not appreciate between a PDP Team and PDP WG. I also think it would be fine for all references to be to PDP WG and that is the term I hear used more often. Attached is a new Feb 8 draft with the changes accepted. While working on this, I ended up losing track of the status of my redline and would appreciate it if you could run a comparison btween this and the language the SCI reviewed in its last call so that all members can see the proposed changes in my draft. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP . Suite 700 One South Church Avenue . Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 . Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com . www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete theoriginal message. _____ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:10 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Dear All, As discussed yesterday, please find attached for your review the suggested modifications to the last version of the language concerning the termination or suspension of a PDP. With best regards, Marika _____ For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to <http://www.lewisandroca.com/> www.lewisandroca.com. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
I had understood the language to specify that the elements required are the reasons for the recommended action and the consensus status per WG guidelines, if applicable. That does not seem to require further specification to me, but others may feel differently. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Ron Andruff [randruff@rnapartners.com] Received: Monday, 11 Feb 2013, 11:28am To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Dear all, Thank you, Marika, for the clarifying points noted below. I would particularly like to draw Committee Members’ attention to the last sentence under the 3rd bullet: “If the SCI insists on requiring a 'Termination Report' or 'Suspension Report', it will be important to define which information is expected to be contained in such report as it is currently nowhere defined in the PDP manual.”. This is an important consideration in finalizing the suspension/termination language. Thank you, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc.<http://www.rnapartners.com> ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 4:27 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Anne, As requested, please find attached the redline comparing the previous version from J. Scott with the latest one you circulated. A couple of comments: * PDP Team is used throughout the PDP Manual as, even though the WG model is currently the preferred option to conduct a PDP, it foresees the possibility for the GNSO Council to choose another model should it decide so (e.g. Committee of the whole), hence the use of the term 'PDP Team'. * There is a timing issue with having a seconded motion before a public comment period can be opened. The current practice of the GNSO Council is to only allow for one deferral of a motion, while a public comment forum may cover at least two Council meetings. It is not clear to me why a properly seconded motion would be needed before a public comment forum may be initiated (a public comment forum can be initiated by the Council or WG at any time it wants, there is no motion required to do so). * Instead of mandating a written report, I had suggested that in order to allow for flexibility, there would be more discretion on the part of the Council liaison and/or WG to decide on the format in which they 'convey to the GNSO Council the reasons for the recommended action to be taken and, if applicable, the points of view represented in the Working Group and the consensus status (as defined by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines) at the time such action is recommended' (for example, this could be in the form of an email, letter or oral update to the GNSO Council). Especially since a safeguard has been added to require a written report at the request of any Council member, AC or Board. If the SCI insists on requiring a 'Termination Report' or 'Suspension Report', it will be important to define which information is expected to be contained in such report as it is currently nowhere defined in the PDP manual. With best regards, Marika From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrlaw.com>> Date: Saturday 9 February 2013 01:25 To: 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: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Marisa, I have taken your language and condensed it a bit as well as trying to clarify that if there is no recommendation from the WG before the Council, then there would have to be a properly seconded motion in order to require the Council to seek public comment. I don't think anyone was intending to completely eliminate the requirement for a written report when the WG was making the recommendation. That written Termination Report or Suspension Report was mandatory where the recommendation for suspension or termination came from the WG. That improvement was at the very heart of this initiative and so that language has been added back where you had deleted it. On a more minor note, I also noticed that the earlier paragraphs in this same section refer to "PDP Team" and not "PDP Working Group". So I changed all the references to PDP Team. It seems it should be one or the other consistently throughout unless there is some difference I do not appreciate between a PDP Team and PDP WG. I also think it would be fine for all references to be to PDP WG and that is the term I hear used more often. Attached is a new Feb 8 draft with the changes accepted. While working on this, I ended up losing track of the status of my redline and would appreciate it if you could run a comparison btween this and the language the SCI reviewed in its last call so that all members can see the proposed changes in my draft. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01CE085B.9A4E9350]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700 One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRLaw.com> • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete theoriginal message. ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:10 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Dear All, As discussed yesterday, please find attached for your review the suggested modifications to the last version of the language concerning the termination or suspension of a PDP. With best regards, Marika ________________________________ For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
In that case, would a 'written statement' containing the reasons for the recommended action and the consensus status per WG guidelines, if applicable, be a more accurate term for what you are looking for? A 'report' in the context of the PDP, is typically something much more substantial (incl. executive summary, attendance records, annexes, etc). Best regards, Marika From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrlaw.com> Date: Monday 11 February 2013 19:57 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>, "randruff@rnapartners.com" <randruff@rnapartners.com> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP I had understood the language to specify that the elements required are the reasons for the recommended action and the consensus status per WG guidelines, if applicable. That does not seem to require further specification to me, but others may feel differently. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Ron Andruff [randruff@rnapartners.com] Received: Monday, 11 Feb 2013, 11:28am To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Dear all, Thank you, Marika, for the clarifying points noted below. I would particularly like to draw Committee Members¹ attention to the last sentence under the 3rd bullet: ³If the SCI insists on requiring a 'Termination Report' or 'Suspension Report', it will be important to define which information is expected to be contained in such report as it is currently nowhere defined in the PDP manual.². This is an important consideration in finalizing the suspension/termination language. Thank you, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. <http://www.rnapartners.com> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 4:27 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Anne, As requested, please find attached the redline comparing the previous version from J. Scott with the latest one you circulated. A couple of comments: * PDP Team is used throughout the PDP Manual as, even though the WG model is currently the preferred option to conduct a PDP, it foresees the possibility for the GNSO Council to choose another model should it decide so (e.g. Committee of the whole), hence the use of the term 'PDP Team'. * There is a timing issue with having a seconded motion before a public comment period can be opened. The current practice of the GNSO Council is to only allow for one deferral of a motion, while a public comment forum may cover at least two Council meetings. It is not clear to me why a properly seconded motion would be needed before a public comment forum may be initiated (a public comment forum can be initiated by the Council or WG at any time it wants, there is no motion required to do so). * Instead of mandating a written report, I had suggested that in order to allow for flexibility, there would be more discretion on the part of the Council liaison and/or WG to decide on the format in which they 'convey to the GNSO Council the reasons for the recommended action to be taken and, if applicable, the points of view represented in the Working Group and the consensus status (as defined by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines) at the time such action is recommended' (for example, this could be in the form of an email, letter or oral update to the GNSO Council). Especially since a safeguard has been added to require a written report at the request of any Council member, AC or Board. If the SCI insists on requiring a 'Termination Report' or 'Suspension Report', it will be important to define which information is expected to be contained in such report as it is currently nowhere defined in the PDP manual. With best regards, Marika From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrlaw.com> Date: Saturday 9 February 2013 01:25 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: RE: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Marisa, I have taken your language and condensed it a bit as well as trying to clarify that if there is no recommendation from the WG before the Council, then there would have to be a properly seconded motion in order to require the Council to seek public comment. I don't think anyone was intending to completely eliminate the requirement for a written report when the WG was making the recommendation. That written Termination Report or Suspension Report was mandatory where the recommendation for suspension or termination came from the WG. That improvement was at the very heart of this initiative and so that language has been added back where you had deleted it. On a more minor note, I also noticed that the earlier paragraphs in this same section refer to "PDP Team" and not "PDP Working Group". So I changed all the references to PDP Team. It seems it should be one or the other consistently throughout unless there is some difference I do not appreciate between a PDP Team and PDP WG. I also think it would be fine for all references to be to PDP WG and that is the term I hear used more often. Attached is a new Feb 8 draft with the changes accepted. While working on this, I ended up losing track of the status of my redline and would appreciate it if you could run a comparison btween this and the language the SCI reviewed in its last call so that all members can see the proposed changes in my draft. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP Suite 700 One South Church Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman <http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete theoriginal message. From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:10 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Dear All, As discussed yesterday, please find attached for your review the suggested modifications to the last version of the language concerning the termination or suspension of a PDP. With best regards, Marika For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com <http://www.lewisandroca.com/> . Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
certaiinly fine with me, but I would likely say "written Termination summary or Suspension summary". [cid:852215720@11022013-1E33]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700 One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRLaw.com> * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 1:26 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; randruff@rnapartners.com Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP In that case, would a 'written statement' containing the reasons for the recommended action and the consensus status per WG guidelines, if applicable, be a more accurate term for what you are looking for? A 'report' in the context of the PDP, is typically something much more substantial (incl. executive summary, attendance records, annexes, etc). Best regards, Marika From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrlaw.com>> Date: Monday 11 February 2013 19:57 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>>, "randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>" <randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP I had understood the language to specify that the elements required are the reasons for the recommended action and the consensus status per WG guidelines, if applicable. That does not seem to require further specification to me, but others may feel differently. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Ron Andruff [randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>] Received: Monday, 11 Feb 2013, 11:28am 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: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Dear all, Thank you, Marika, for the clarifying points noted below. I would particularly like to draw Committee Members' attention to the last sentence under the 3rd bullet: "If the SCI insists on requiring a 'Termination Report' or 'Suspension Report', it will be important to define which information is expected to be contained in such report as it is currently nowhere defined in the PDP manual.". This is an important consideration in finalizing the suspension/termination language. Thank you, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc.<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 Marika Konings Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 4:27 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Anne, As requested, please find attached the redline comparing the previous version from J. Scott with the latest one you circulated. A couple of comments: * PDP Team is used throughout the PDP Manual as, even though the WG model is currently the preferred option to conduct a PDP, it foresees the possibility for the GNSO Council to choose another model should it decide so (e.g. Committee of the whole), hence the use of the term 'PDP Team'. * There is a timing issue with having a seconded motion before a public comment period can be opened. The current practice of the GNSO Council is to only allow for one deferral of a motion, while a public comment forum may cover at least two Council meetings. It is not clear to me why a properly seconded motion would be needed before a public comment forum may be initiated (a public comment forum can be initiated by the Council or WG at any time it wants, there is no motion required to do so). * Instead of mandating a written report, I had suggested that in order to allow for flexibility, there would be more discretion on the part of the Council liaison and/or WG to decide on the format in which they 'convey to the GNSO Council the reasons for the recommended action to be taken and, if applicable, the points of view represented in the Working Group and the consensus status (as defined by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines) at the time such action is recommended' (for example, this could be in the form of an email, letter or oral update to the GNSO Council). Especially since a safeguard has been added to require a written report at the request of any Council member, AC or Board. If the SCI insists on requiring a 'Termination Report' or 'Suspension Report', it will be important to define which information is expected to be contained in such report as it is currently nowhere defined in the PDP manual. With best regards, Marika From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrlaw.com>> Date: Saturday 9 February 2013 01:25 To: 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: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Marisa, I have taken your language and condensed it a bit as well as trying to clarify that if there is no recommendation from the WG before the Council, then there would have to be a properly seconded motion in order to require the Council to seek public comment. I don't think anyone was intending to completely eliminate the requirement for a written report when the WG was making the recommendation. That written Termination Report or Suspension Report was mandatory where the recommendation for suspension or termination came from the WG. That improvement was at the very heart of this initiative and so that language has been added back where you had deleted it. On a more minor note, I also noticed that the earlier paragraphs in this same section refer to "PDP Team" and not "PDP Working Group". So I changed all the references to PDP Team. It seems it should be one or the other consistently throughout unless there is some difference I do not appreciate between a PDP Team and PDP WG. I also think it would be fine for all references to be to PDP WG and that is the term I hear used more often. Attached is a new Feb 8 draft with the changes accepted. While working on this, I ended up losing track of the status of my redline and would appreciate it if you could run a comparison btween this and the language the SCI reviewed in its last call so that all members can see the proposed changes in my draft. Thank you, Anne [cid:852215720@11022013-1E3A]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700 One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRLaw.com> * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete theoriginal message. ________________________________ From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:10 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Dear All, As discussed yesterday, please find attached for your review the suggested modifications to the last version of the language concerning the termination or suspension of a PDP. With best regards, Marika ________________________________ For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
$(UHi everyone - I support the idea of not requiring a report (for the reasons stated by Marika), and of substituting a written summary of some sort, the idea here being to capture the reasons and consensus status (as Anne mentions), which in my view can be achieved with the latter type of document rather than going down the road of expecting a full-blown report of the kind a PDP normally produces. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong@law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrlaw.com> To: "'Marika Konings'" <marika.konings@icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>, "randruff@rnapartners.com" <randruff@rnapartners.com> Date: 2/11/2013 4:02 PM Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP certaiinly fine with me, but I would likely say "written Termination summary or Suspension summary". Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700 One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman ( http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman ) P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete theoriginal message. From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 1:26 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; randruff@rnapartners.com Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP In that case, would a 'written statement' containing the reasons for the recommended action and the consensus status per WG guidelines, if applicable, be a more accurate term for what you are looking for? A 'report' in the context of the PDP, is typically something much more substantial (incl. executive summary, attendance records, annexes, etc). Best regards, Marika From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrlaw.com> Date: Monday 11 February 2013 19:57 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>, "randruff@rnapartners.com" <randruff@rnapartners.com> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP @font-face { font-family: Wingdings; } @font-face { font-family: Tahoma; } @font-face { font-family: Calibri; } @font-face { font-family: Webdings; } @font-face { font-family: Century Gothic; } @font-face { font-family: MS ??; } @font-face { font-family: @MS ??; } @page Section1 {margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; } P.MSONORMAL { } LI.MSONORMAL { } DIV.MSONORMAL { } .MSOCHPDEFAULT { } TABLE.MSONORMALTABLE { } P.MSONORMAL { MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt } LI.MSONORMAL { MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt } DIV.MSONORMAL { MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt } A:link { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlink { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A:visited { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } P { FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in } SPAN.EmailStyle20 { FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: blue; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none } DIV.Section1 { } OL { MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in } UL { MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in } I had understood the language to specify that the elements required are the reasons for the recommended action and the consensus status per WG guidelines, if applicable. That does not seem to require further specification to me, but others may feel differently. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Ron Andruff [randruff@rnapartners.com] Received: Monday, 11 Feb 2013, 11:28am To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Dear all, Thank you, Marika, for the clarifying points noted below. I would particularly like to draw Committee Members’ attention to the last sentence under the 3rd bullet: “If the SCI insists on requiring a 'Termination Report' or 'Suspension Report', it will be important to define which information is expected to be contained in such report as it is currently nowhere defined in the PDP manual.”. This is an important consideration in finalizing the suspension/termination language. Thank you, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. ( http://www.rnapartners.com ) From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 4:27 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Anne, As requested, please find attached the redline comparing the previous version from J. Scott with the latest one you circulated. A couple of comments: PDP Team is used throughout the PDP Manual as, even though the WG model is currently the preferred option to conduct a PDP, it foresees the possibility for the GNSO Council to choose another model should it decide so (e.g. Committee of the whole), hence the use of the term 'PDP Team'. There is a timing issue with having a seconded motion before a public comment period can be opened. The current practice of the GNSO Council is to only allow for one deferral of a motion, while a public comment forum may cover at least two Council meetings. It is not clear to me why a properly seconded motion would be needed before a public comment forum may be initiated (a public comment forum can be initiated by the Council or WG at any time it wants, there is no motion required to do so). Instead of mandating a written report, I had suggested that in order to allow for flexibility, there would be more discretion on the part of the Council liaison and/or WG to decide on the format in which they 'convey to the GNSO Council the reasons for the recommended action to be taken and, if applicable, the points of view represented in the Working Group and the consensus status (as defined by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines) at the time such action is recommended' (for example, this could be in the form of an email, letter or oral update to the GNSO Council). Especially since a safeguard has been added to require a written report at the request of any Council member, AC or Board. If the SCI insists on requiring a 'Termination Report' or 'Suspension Report', it will be important to define which information is expected to be contained in such report as it is currently nowhere defined in the PDP manual. With best regards, Marika From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrlaw.com> Date: Saturday 9 February 2013 01:25 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: RE: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Marisa, I have taken your language and condensed it a bit as well as trying to clarify that if there is no recommendation from the WG before the Council, then there would have to be a properly seconded motion in order to require the Council to seek public comment. I don't think anyone was intending to completely eliminate the requirement for a written report when the WG was making the recommendation. That written Termination Report or Suspension Report was mandatory where the recommendation for suspension or termination came from the WG. That improvement was at the very heart of this initiative and so that language has been added back where you had deleted it. On a more minor note, I also noticed that the earlier paragraphs in this same section refer to "PDP Team" and not "PDP Working Group". So I changed all the references to PDP Team. It seems it should be one or the other consistently throughout unless there is some difference I do not appreciate between a PDP Team and PDP WG. I also think it would be fine for all references to be to PDP WG and that is the term I hear used more often. Attached is a new Feb 8 draft with the changes accepted. While working on this, I ended up losing track of the status of my redline and would appreciate it if you could run a comparison btween this and the language the SCI reviewed in its last call so that all members can see the proposed changes in my draft. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700 One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman ( http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman ) P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete theoriginal message. From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:10 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Dear All, As discussed yesterday, please find attached for your review the suggested modifications to the last version of the language concerning the termination or suspension of a PDP. With best regards, Marika For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
Not having seen any further comments, I've updated the latest version by changing 'report' to 'summary' and reinstated the term 'PDP Team'. One remaining item the SCI may want to discuss is whether the language in between brackets ('but there is a motion properly made and seconded to suspend or terminate the PDP prior to a Final Report') should remain. As noted in my previous comments 'There is a timing issue with having a seconded motion before a public comment period can be opened. The current practice of the GNSO Council is to only allow for one deferral of a motion, while a public comment forum may cover at least two Council meetings. It is not clear to me why a properly seconded motion would be needed before a public comment forum may be initiated (a public comment forum can be initiated by the Council or WG at any time it wants, there is no motion required to do so.' With best regards, Marika From: Mary Wong <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> Date: Tuesday 12 February 2013 03:50 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Hi everyone - I support the idea of not requiring a report (for the reasons stated by Marika), and of substituting a written summary of some sort, the idea here being to capture the reasons and consensus status (as Anne mentions), which in my view can be achieved with the latter type of document rather than going down the road of expecting a full-blown report of the kind a PDP normally produces. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong@law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php <http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrlaw.com> To: "'Marika Konings'" <marika.konings@icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>, "randruff@rnapartners.com" <randruff@rnapartners.com> Date: 2/11/2013 4:02 PM Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP certaiinly fine with me, but I would likely say "written Termination summary or Suspension summary". Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP Suite 700 One South Church Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman <http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete theoriginal message. From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 1:26 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; randruff@rnapartners.com Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP In that case, would a 'written statement' containing the reasons for the recommended action and the consensus status per WG guidelines, if applicable, be a more accurate term for what you are looking for? A 'report' in the context of the PDP, is typically something much more substantial (incl. executive summary, attendance records, annexes, etc). Best regards, Marika From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrlaw.com> Date: Monday 11 February 2013 19:57 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>, "randruff@rnapartners.com" <randruff@rnapartners.com> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP @font-face { font-family: Wingdings; } @font-face { font-family: Tahoma; } @font-face { font-family: Calibri; } @font-face { font-family: Webdings; } @font-face { font-family: Century Gothic; } @font-face { font-family: MS ??; } @font-face { font-family: @MS ??; } @page Section1 {margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; } P.MSONORMAL { } LI.MSONORMAL { } DIV.MSONORMAL { } .MSOCHPDEFAULT { } TABLE.MSONORMALTABLE { } P.MSONORMAL { MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt } LI.MSONORMAL { MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt } DIV.MSONORMAL { MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt } A:link { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlink { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A:visited { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } P { FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in } SPAN.EmailStyle20 { FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: blue; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none } DIV.Section1 { } OL { MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in } UL { MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in } I had understood the language to specify that the elements required are the reasons for the recommended action and the consensus status per WG guidelines, if applicable. That does not seem to require further specification to me, but others may feel differently. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Ron Andruff [randruff@rnapartners.com] Received: Monday, 11 Feb 2013, 11:28am To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Dear all, Thank you, Marika, for the clarifying points noted below. I would particularly like to draw Committee Members¹ attention to the last sentence under the 3rd bullet: ³If the SCI insists on requiring a 'Termination Report' or 'Suspension Report', it will be important to define which information is expected to be contained in such report as it is currently nowhere defined in the PDP manual.². This is an important consideration in finalizing the suspension/termination language. Thank you, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. <http://www.rnapartners.com> From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 4:27 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Anne, As requested, please find attached the redline comparing the previous version from J. Scott with the latest one you circulated. A couple of comments: * * PDP Team is used throughout the PDP Manual as, even though the WG model is currently the preferred option to conduct a PDP, it foresees the possibility for the GNSO Council to choose another model should it decide so (e.g. Committee of the whole), hence the use of the term 'PDP Team'. * * * * There is a timing issue with having a seconded motion before a public comment period can be opened. The current practice of the GNSO Council is to only allow for one deferral of a motion, while a public comment forum may cover at least two Council meetings. It is not clear to me why a properly seconded motion would be needed before a public comment forum may be initiated (a public comment forum can be initiated by the Council or WG at any time it wants, there is no motion required to do so). * * * * Instead of mandating a written report, I had suggested that in order to allow for flexibility, there would be more discretion on the part of the Council liaison and/or WG to decide on the format in which they 'convey to the GNSO Council the reasons for the recommended action to be taken and, if applicable, the points of view represented in the Working Group and the consensus status (as defined by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines) at the time such action is recommended' (for example, this could be in the form of an email, letter or oral update to the GNSO Council). Especially since a safeguard has been added to require a written report at the request of any Council member, AC or Board. If the SCI insists on requiring a 'Termination Report' or 'Suspension Report', it will be important to define which information is expected to be contained in such report as it is currently nowhere defined in the PDP manual. * With best regards, Marika From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrlaw.com> Date: Saturday 9 February 2013 01:25 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: RE: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Marisa, I have taken your language and condensed it a bit as well as trying to clarify that if there is no recommendation from the WG before the Council, then there would have to be a properly seconded motion in order to require the Council to seek public comment. I don't think anyone was intending to completely eliminate the requirement for a written report when the WG was making the recommendation. That written Termination Report or Suspension Report was mandatory where the recommendation for suspension or termination came from the WG. That improvement was at the very heart of this initiative and so that language has been added back where you had deleted it. On a more minor note, I also noticed that the earlier paragraphs in this same section refer to "PDP Team" and not "PDP Working Group". So I changed all the references to PDP Team. It seems it should be one or the other consistently throughout unless there is some difference I do not appreciate between a PDP Team and PDP WG. I also think it would be fine for all references to be to PDP WG and that is the term I hear used more often. Attached is a new Feb 8 draft with the changes accepted. While working on this, I ended up losing track of the status of my redline and would appreciate it if you could run a comparison btween this and the language the SCI reviewed in its last call so that all members can see the proposed changes in my draft. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP Suite 700 One South Church Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman <http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete theoriginal message. From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:10 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Dear All, As discussed yesterday, please find attached for your review the suggested modifications to the last version of the language concerning the termination or suspension of a PDP. With best regards, Marika For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com <http://www.lewisandroca.com/> . Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
Thanks Marika. This looks right. There may be one more reference to change as to PDP Team because there is langauge about "upon the recommendation of the PDP WG" - should this changed to "PDP Team" as well? I certainly agree with you about the motion and second question. I am just trying to address the issue of how we know that GNSO intends to actually take a vote on the suspension before putting something out for public comment. Hopefully we can talk about the procedural trigger for public comment on the call. Anne [cid:082262917@20022013-1B87]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700 One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRLaw.com> * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 2:38 AM To: Mary Wong; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Updated version - Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Not having seen any further comments, I've updated the latest version by changing 'report' to 'summary' and reinstated the term 'PDP Team'. One remaining item the SCI may want to discuss is whether the language in between brackets ('but there is a motion properly made and seconded to suspend or terminate the PDP prior to a Final Report') should remain. As noted in my previous comments 'There is a timing issue with having a seconded motion before a public comment period can be opened. The current practice of the GNSO Council is to only allow for one deferral of a motion, while a public comment forum may cover at least two Council meetings. It is not clear to me why a properly seconded motion would be needed before a public comment forum may be initiated (a public comment forum can be initiated by the Council or WG at any time it wants, there is no motion required to do so.' With best regards, Marika From: Mary Wong <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu<mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu>> Date: Tuesday 12 February 2013 03:50 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: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Hi everyone - I support the idea of not requiring a report (for the reasons stated by Marika), and of substituting a written summary of some sort, the idea here being to capture the reasons and consensus status (as Anne mentions), which in my view can be achieved with the latter type of document rather than going down the road of expecting a full-blown report of the kind a PDP normally produces. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong@law.unh.edu<mailto:mary.wong@law.unh.edu> Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrlaw.com>> To: "'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>>, "randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>" <randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>> Date: 2/11/2013 4:02 PM Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP certaiinly fine with me, but I would likely say "written Termination summary or Suspension summary". [cid:082262917@20022013-1B8E] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700 One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRLaw.com> * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete theoriginal message. ________________________________ From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 1:26 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>; randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP In that case, would a 'written statement' containing the reasons for the recommended action and the consensus status per WG guidelines, if applicable, be a more accurate term for what you are looking for? A 'report' in the context of the PDP, is typically something much more substantial (incl. executive summary, attendance records, annexes, etc). Best regards, Marika From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrlaw.com>> Date: Monday 11 February 2013 19:57 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>>, "randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>" <randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP @font-face { font-family: Wingdings; } @font-face { font-family: Tahoma; } @font-face { font-family: Calibri; } @font-face { font-family: Webdings; } @font-face { font-family: Century Gothic; } @font-face { font-family: MS ??; } @font-face { font-family: @MS ??; } @page Section1 {margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; } P.MSONORMAL { } LI.MSONORMAL { } DIV.MSONORMAL { } .MSOCHPDEFAULT { } TABLE.MSONORMALTABLE { } P.MSONORMAL { MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt } LI.MSONORMAL { MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt } DIV.MSONORMAL { MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt } A:link { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlink { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A:visited { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } P { FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in } SPAN.EmailStyle20 { FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: blue; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none } DIV.Section1 { } OL { MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in } UL { MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in } I had understood the language to specify that the elements required are the reasons for the recommended action and the consensus status per WG guidelines, if applicable. That does not seem to require further specification to me, but others may feel differently. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Ron Andruff [randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>] Received: Monday, 11 Feb 2013, 11:28am 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: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Dear all, Thank you, Marika, for the clarifying points noted below. I would particularly like to draw Committee Members' attention to the last sentence under the 3rd bullet: "If the SCI insists on requiring a 'Termination Report' or 'Suspension Report', it will be important to define which information is expected to be contained in such report as it is currently nowhere defined in the PDP manual.". This is an important consideration in finalizing the suspension/termination language. Thank you, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc.<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 Marika Konings Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 4:27 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Anne, As requested, please find attached the redline comparing the previous version from J. Scott with the latest one you circulated. A couple of comments: * PDP Team is used throughout the PDP Manual as, even though the WG model is currently the preferred option to conduct a PDP, it foresees the possibility for the GNSO Council to choose another model should it decide so (e.g. Committee of the whole), hence the use of the term 'PDP Team'. * There is a timing issue with having a seconded motion before a public comment period can be opened. The current practice of the GNSO Council is to only allow for one deferral of a motion, while a public comment forum may cover at least two Council meetings. It is not clear to me why a properly seconded motion would be needed before a public comment forum may be initiated (a public comment forum can be initiated by the Council or WG at any time it wants, there is no motion required to do so). * Instead of mandating a written report, I had suggested that in order to allow for flexibility, there would be more discretion on the part of the Council liaison and/or WG to decide on the format in which they 'convey to the GNSO Council the reasons for the recommended action to be taken and, if applicable, the points of view represented in the Working Group and the consensus status (as defined by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines) at the time such action is recommended' (for example, this could be in the form of an email, letter or oral update to the GNSO Council). Especially since a safeguard has been added to require a written report at the request of any Council member, AC or Board. If the SCI insists on requiring a 'Termination Report' or 'Suspension Report', it will be important to define which information is expected to be contained in such report as it is currently nowhere defined in the PDP manual. With best regards, Marika From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrlaw.com>> Date: Saturday 9 February 2013 01:25 To: 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: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Marisa, I have taken your language and condensed it a bit as well as trying to clarify that if there is no recommendation from the WG before the Council, then there would have to be a properly seconded motion in order to require the Council to seek public comment. I don't think anyone was intending to completely eliminate the requirement for a written report when the WG was making the recommendation. That written Termination Report or Suspension Report was mandatory where the recommendation for suspension or termination came from the WG. That improvement was at the very heart of this initiative and so that language has been added back where you had deleted it. On a more minor note, I also noticed that the earlier paragraphs in this same section refer to "PDP Team" and not "PDP Working Group". So I changed all the references to PDP Team. It seems it should be one or the other consistently throughout unless there is some difference I do not appreciate between a PDP Team and PDP WG. I also think it would be fine for all references to be to PDP WG and that is the term I hear used more often. Attached is a new Feb 8 draft with the changes accepted. While working on this, I ended up losing track of the status of my redline and would appreciate it if you could run a comparison btween this and the language the SCI reviewed in its last call so that all members can see the proposed changes in my draft. Thank you, Anne [cid:082262917@20022013-1B95] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700 One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRLaw.com> * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete theoriginal message. ________________________________ From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:10 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Dear All, As discussed yesterday, please find attached for your review the suggested modifications to the last version of the language concerning the termination or suspension of a PDP. With best regards, Marika ________________________________ For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
participants (4)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Marika Konings -
Mary Wong -
Ron Andruff