Ron and Committee Members: Off the cuff, I think there are two approaches to Ron's second question: (1) How many times in a given period can a motion be reintroduced And/or (2) How much time must elapse before a failed motion can be reintroduced? The legal, government, commercial, non-profit and academic worlds probably have a jillion examples for each. So any decision this group reaches will be, by some measure, arbitrary. :) Therefore, I will start the bidding at: (1) twice, total and (2) 12 calendar months. Thoughts? J. On 6/4/13 16:18, "Ron Andruff" <randruff@rnapartners.com> wrote:

Agree with Avri re 1-2; but would like a clarification as to why this would need to be on the 'consent' agenda. Can one of the lawyers in our midst clarify that for us?

Regarding what James noted as avoiding a 'zombie motion' (as in one that will never die) I agree that it would make sense to have a limit on how many times a motion can be resubmitted.

How many times does the Committee think would be appropriate?

Kind regards,

RA

Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com

-----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:43 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion Importance: High

Hi,

I support 1-3. As I understand it one would need to meet all 3 conditions, otherwise there would be no stopping it being on every agenda.

Also I thought some wanted to add a rate throttling mechanism or a maximum count.

I agree 4 is superfluous since any council member can ask for something to be taken off the consent agenda, not that i expect a resubmitted motion would ever make the consent agenda.

avri

On 4 Jun 2013, at 16:31, Julie Hedlund wrote:

...

Dear SCI members,

As discussed on today's call, we will continue discussion on the list on re-submission of a motion. There was agreement on option 2 (see below), but not on which criteria to include (see comments from Anne and James in their emails below).

Please send your comments to the list. This also will be on the agenda at our next meeting.

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Procedure for Re-Submission of a Motion:

Option 2 -- Set one or more high-level criteria (in this order):

1) Provide a reasoning to justify the resubmission of a motion. Complete no later than the deadline for submitting a motion -- 8 days prior to the next GNSO Council meeting. 2) Publish the text of the re-submitted motion. Complete no later than the deadline for submitting a motion -- 8 days prior to the next GNSO Council meeting. 3) Require a seconder of the motion from each house as a prerequisite for placing the re-submission of the motion on the consent agenda. 4) Allow a councilor to ask for the re-submission of the motion to be taken off the consent agenda and to request a Council vote on whether to accept the re-submission. --------------------------------------------------------------- From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrlaw.com> Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:42 PM To: Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: 'Jennifer Standiford' <JStandiford@web.com> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re: Action item from SCI Meeting 06 March Re-Submitting a Motion

Ron, I had wanted to report to SCI that in its full meeting in Beijing, the IPC agreed to the first two criteria listed in Item 2 of the "one or more high level criteria" to be set for resubmitting a motion.

Anne --------------------------------------------------------------------- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel?Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:51 PM?To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org?Cc: Jennifer Standiford?Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re: Action item from SCI Meeting 06 March -- Re-Submitting a Motion?Importance: High

Hello SCI Team:

Last week, Jennifer and I were able to consult with the Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) on this issue. We can report that RrSG members strongly favor Option #2.

Additionally, Registrars agree with the proposed criteria listed, -except- for item #2.4, which they note could be redundant if Items #2.1-#2.3 are followed. Finally, RrSG members would like to see the inclusion of some limitations (per year or minimum time frame) on how frequently a motion may be re-introduced.

We look forward to further discussions on our next call.

Thanks--

J.

You would have to account for changed circumstances that could occur, e.g. between ICANN meetings or about every quarter. For example, there could be a deadlock and a suspension of a Working Group that might result in the need to introduce the same motion. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700 One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 2:30 PM To: James M. Bladel Cc: Ron Andruff; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion hi all, i'll join the parade in favor of "not too many bites at the apple", and like James' initial bid. mikey On Jun 4, 2013, at 4:26 PM, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:

Ron and Committee Members:

Off the cuff, I think there are two approaches to Ron's second question:

(1) How many times in a given period can a motion be reintroduced

And/or

(2) How much time must elapse before a failed motion can be reintroduced?

The legal, government, commercial, non-profit and academic worlds probably have a jillion examples for each. So any decision this group reaches will be, by some measure, arbitrary. :)

Therefore, I will start the bidding at: (1) twice, total and (2) 12 calendar months.

Thoughts?

J.

On 6/4/13 16:18, "Ron Andruff" <randruff@rnapartners.com> wrote:

...

Agree with Avri re 1-2; but would like a clarification as to why this would need to be on the 'consent' agenda. Can one of the lawyers in our midst clarify that for us?

Regarding what James noted as avoiding a 'zombie motion' (as in one that will never die) I agree that it would make sense to have a limit on how many times a motion can be resubmitted.

How many times does the Committee think would be appropriate?

Kind regards,

RA

Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com

-----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:43 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion Importance: High

Hi,

I support 1-3. As I understand it one would need to meet all 3 conditions, otherwise there would be no stopping it being on every agenda.

Also I thought some wanted to add a rate throttling mechanism or a maximum count.

I agree 4 is superfluous since any council member can ask for something to be taken off the consent agenda, not that i expect a resubmitted motion would ever make the consent agenda.

avri

On 4 Jun 2013, at 16:31, Julie Hedlund wrote:

...

Dear SCI members,

As discussed on today's call, we will continue discussion on the list on re-submission of a motion. There was agreement on option 2 (see below), but not on which criteria to include (see comments from Anne and James in their emails below).

Please send your comments to the list. This also will be on the agenda at our next meeting.

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Procedure for Re-Submission of a Motion:

Option 2 -- Set one or more high-level criteria (in this order):

1) Provide a reasoning to justify the resubmission of a motion. Complete no later than the deadline for submitting a motion -- 8 days prior to the next GNSO Council meeting. 2) Publish the text of the re-submitted motion. Complete no later than the deadline for submitting a motion -- 8 days prior to the next GNSO Council meeting. 3) Require a seconder of the motion from each house as a prerequisite for placing the re-submission of the motion on the consent agenda. 4) Allow a councilor to ask for the re-submission of the motion to be taken off the consent agenda and to request a Council vote on whether to accept the re-submission. --------------------------------------------------------------- From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrlaw.com> Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:42 PM To: Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: 'Jennifer Standiford' <JStandiford@web.com> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re: Action item from SCI Meeting 06 March Re-Submitting a Motion

Ron, I had wanted to report to SCI that in its full meeting in Beijing, the IPC agreed to the first two criteria listed in Item 2 of the "one or more high level criteria" to be set for resubmitting a motion.

Anne -------------------------------------------------------------------- - From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel?Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:51 PM?To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org?Cc: Jennifer Standiford?Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re: Action item from SCI Meeting 06 March -- Re-Submitting a Motion?Importance: High

Hello SCI Team:

Last week, Jennifer and I were able to consult with the Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) on this issue. We can report that RrSG members strongly favor Option #2.

Additionally, Registrars agree with the proposed criteria listed, -except- for item #2.4, which they note could be redundant if Items #2.1-#2.3 are followed. Finally, RrSG members would like to see the inclusion of some limitations (per year or minimum time frame) on how frequently a motion may be re-introduced.

We look forward to further discussions on our next call.

Thanks--

J.

PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) ---------------------- 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

Hi All, I agree. Just as a point of clarification, I read "2 total" as 2 *RE*introductions of a failed motion, meaning that all motions get a total of 3 opportunities to be considered, with all three occurring within a 12-month period. Angie Angie Graves WEB Group, Inc. On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 5:43 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>wrote:

I agree. Let's start with this plus a second from each house.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Mike O'Connor Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 11:30 PM To: James M. Bladel Cc: Ron Andruff ; 'Avri Doria' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.**org<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion

hi all,

i'll join the parade in favor of "not too many bites at the apple", and like James' initial bid.

mikey

On Jun 4, 2013, at 4:26 PM, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:

...

Ron and Committee Members:

Off the cuff, I think there are two approaches to Ron's second question:

(1) How many times in a given period can a motion be reintroduced

And/or

(2) How much time must elapse before a failed motion can be reintroduced?

The legal, government, commercial, non-profit and academic worlds probably have a jillion examples for each. So any decision this group reaches will be, by some measure, arbitrary. :)

Therefore, I will start the bidding at: (1) twice, total and (2) 12 calendar months.

Thoughts?

J.

On 6/4/13 16:18, "Ron Andruff" <randruff@rnapartners.com> wrote:

...

Agree with Avri re 1-2; but would like a clarification as to why this would need to be on the 'consent' agenda. Can one of the lawyers in our midst clarify that for us?

Regarding what James noted as avoiding a 'zombie motion' (as in one that will never die) I agree that it would make sense to have a limit on how many times a motion can be resubmitted.

How many times does the Committee think would be appropriate?

Kind regards,

RA

Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com

-----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@**icann.org<owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-**impl-sc@icann.org<owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:43 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.**org <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion Importance: High

Hi,

I support 1-3. As I understand it one would need to meet all 3 conditions, otherwise there would be no stopping it being on every agenda.

Also I thought some wanted to add a rate throttling mechanism or a maximum count.

I agree 4 is superfluous since any council member can ask for something to be taken off the consent agenda, not that i expect a resubmitted motion would ever make the consent agenda.

avri

On 4 Jun 2013, at 16:31, Julie Hedlund wrote:

Dear SCI members,

...

As discussed on today's call, we will continue discussion on the list on

re-submission of a motion. There was agreement on option 2 (see below), but not on which criteria to include (see comments from Anne and James in their emails below).

...

Please send your comments to the list. This also will be on the agenda at

our next meeting.

...

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Procedure for Re-Submission of a Motion:

Option 2 -- Set one or more high-level criteria (in this order):

1) Provide a reasoning to justify the resubmission of a motion. Complete

no later than the deadline for submitting a motion -- 8 days prior to the next GNSO Council meeting.

...

2) Publish the text of the re-submitted motion. Complete no later than

the deadline for submitting a motion -- 8 days prior to the next GNSO Council meeting.

...

3) Require a seconder of the motion from each house as a prerequisite for

placing the re-submission of the motion on the consent agenda.

...

4) Allow a councilor to ask for the re-submission of the motion to be

taken off the consent agenda and to request a Council vote on whether to accept the re-submission.

...

------------------------------**------------------------------**--- From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrlaw.com> Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:42 PM To: Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com>, James Bladel

<jbladel@godaddy.com>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.**org<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> " <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.**org <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>>

...

Cc: 'Jennifer Standiford' <JStandiford@web.com> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re: Action item from SCI

Meeting 06 March Re-Submitting a Motion

...

Ron, I had wanted to report to SCI that in its full meeting in Beijing, the IPC

agreed to the first two criteria listed in Item 2 of the "one or more high level criteria" to be set for resubmitting a motion.

...

Anne ------------------------------**------------------------------** --------- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@**icann.org<owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>

[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-**impl-sc@icann.org<owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel?Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:51 PM?To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.**org?Cc<http://gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org?Cc>: Jennifer Standiford?Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re: Action item from SCI Meeting 06 March -- Re-Submitting a Motion?Importance: High

...

Hello SCI Team:

Last week, Jennifer and I were able to consult with the Registrar

Stakeholder Group (RrSG) on this issue. We can report that RrSG members strongly favor Option #2.

...

Additionally, Registrars agree with the proposed criteria listed, -except-

for item #2.4, which they note could be redundant if Items #2.1-#2.3 are followed. Finally, RrSG members would like to see the inclusion of some limitations (per year or minimum time frame) on how frequently a motion may be re-introduced.

...

We look forward to further discussions on our next call.

Thanks--

J.

PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

Thanks for bringing these points to the discussion, Marika. Much appreciated. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners <http://www.rnapartners.com> www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 20:27 To: Angie Graves; WUKnoben Cc: Mike O'Connor; James M. Bladel; Ron Andruff; Avri Doria; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion Apologies if I'm raising questions / issues that have already been considered, but the following questions come to my mind: * Who makes a determination whether it considers a re-submission of a motion or whether it is considers a new motion? Does it have to be identical to be considered a re-submission? If a few words are added or whereas clauses are introduced, does that make it a new motion? * The PDP Manual foresees that 'In the event that the GNSO Council does not approve the initiation of the PDP, not including the possible suspension of further consideration of the Final Issue Report as described above, any Councillor may appeal the denial, and request that the GNSO Council hold a renewed vote on the initiation of the PDP at the next subsequent GNSO Council meeting'. There are no further requirements attached to this 'renewed vote' - would this be considered an exception or would it need to be brought in line with the new requirements if/when approved? * A 12 month period appears to be a long time to be able to reconsider a motion – for example, there may be new information brought forward that may result in a change of opinion / vote of a SG/C that may warrant reconsideration of a motion or a certain urgency may require quicker reconsideration. Should a shorter time frame be considered, or at a minimum the possibility of an exception to this timeframe at the discretion of the Chair? If these questions were already considered, please feel free to ignore. Best regards, Marika From: Angie Graves <angie@webgroup.com <mailto:angie@webgroup.com> > Date: Thursday 6 June 2013 00:43 To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> > Cc: Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com <mailto:mike@haven2.com> >, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> >, Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com <mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com> >, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.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] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion Hi All, I agree. Just as a point of clarification, I read "2 total" as 2 REintroductions of a failed motion, meaning that all motions get a total of 3 opportunities to be considered, with all three occurring within a 12-month period. Angie Angie Graves WEB Group, Inc. On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 5:43 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> > wrote: I agree. Let's start with this plus a second from each house. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Mike O'Connor Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 11:30 PM To: James M. Bladel Cc: Ron Andruff ; 'Avri Doria' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion hi all, i'll join the parade in favor of "not too many bites at the apple", and like James' initial bid. mikey On Jun 4, 2013, at 4:26 PM, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> > wrote: Ron and Committee Members: Off the cuff, I think there are two approaches to Ron's second question: (1) How many times in a given period can a motion be reintroduced And/or (2) How much time must elapse before a failed motion can be reintroduced? The legal, government, commercial, non-profit and academic worlds probably have a jillion examples for each. So any decision this group reaches will be, by some measure, arbitrary. :) Therefore, I will start the bidding at: (1) twice, total and (2) 12 calendar months. Thoughts? J. On 6/4/13 16:18, "Ron Andruff" <randruff@rnapartners.com> wrote: Agree with Avri re 1-2; but would like a clarification as to why this would need to be on the 'consent' agenda. Can one of the lawyers in our midst clarify that for us? Regarding what James noted as avoiding a 'zombie motion' (as in one that will never die) I agree that it would make sense to have a limit on how many times a motion can be resubmitted. How many times does the Committee think would be appropriate? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> -----Original 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 <mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:43 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion Importance: High Hi, I support 1-3. As I understand it one would need to meet all 3 conditions, otherwise there would be no stopping it being on every agenda. Also I thought some wanted to add a rate throttling mechanism or a maximum count. I agree 4 is superfluous since any council member can ask for something to be taken off the consent agenda, not that i expect a resubmitted motion would ever make the consent agenda. avri On 4 Jun 2013, at 16:31, Julie Hedlund wrote: Dear SCI members, As discussed on today's call, we will continue discussion on the list on re-submission of a motion. There was agreement on option 2 (see below), but not on which criteria to include (see comments from Anne and James in their emails below). Please send your comments to the list. This also will be on the agenda at our next meeting. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Procedure for Re-Submission of a Motion: Option 2 -- Set one or more high-level criteria (in this order): 1) Provide a reasoning to justify the resubmission of a motion. Complete no later than the deadline for submitting a motion -- 8 days prior to the next GNSO Council meeting. 2) Publish the text of the re-submitted motion. Complete no later than the deadline for submitting a motion -- 8 days prior to the next GNSO Council meeting. 3) Require a seconder of the motion from each house as a prerequisite for placing the re-submission of the motion on the consent agenda. 4) Allow a councilor to ask for the re-submission of the motion to be taken off the consent agenda and to request a Council vote on whether to accept the re-submission. --------------------------------------------------------------- From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrlaw.com <mailto:AAikman@lrlaw.com> > Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:42 PM To: Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com <mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>

, James Bladel

<jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> >, "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> > Cc: 'Jennifer Standiford' <JStandiford@web.com <mailto:JStandiford@web.com>

Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re: Action item from SCI Meeting 06 March Re-Submitting a Motion Ron, I had wanted to report to SCI that in its full meeting in Beijing, the IPC agreed to the first two criteria listed in Item 2 of the "one or more high level criteria" to be set for resubmitting a motion. Anne --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 James M. Bladel?Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:51 PM?To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org?Cc <http://gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org?Cc> : Jennifer Standiford?Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re: Action item from SCI Meeting 06 March -- Re-Submitting a Motion?Importance: High Hello SCI Team: Last week, Jennifer and I were able to consult with the Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) on this issue. We can report that RrSG members strongly favor Option #2. Additionally, Registrars agree with the proposed criteria listed, -except- for item #2.4, which they note could be redundant if Items #2.1-#2.3 are followed. Finally, RrSG members would like to see the inclusion of some limitations (per year or minimum time frame) on how frequently a motion may be re-introduced. We look forward to further discussions on our next call. Thanks-- J. PHONE: 651-647-6109 <tel:651-647-6109> , FAX: 866-280-2356 <tel:866-280-2356> , WEB: www.haven2.com <http://www.haven2.com> , HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

Marika makes some very good points about potential conflicts related to other motion provisions. We may need to go back to the subgroup to study this. The subgroup was Mary, Thomas, me and anyone else? Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700 One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 8:21 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion On 5 Jun 2013, at 20:27, Marika Konings wrote:

Apologies if I'm raising questions / issues that have already been considered, but the following questions come to my mind: • Who makes a determination whether it considers a re-submission of a motion or whether it is considers a new motion? Does it have to be identical to be considered a re-submission? If a few words are added or whereas clauses are introduced, does that make it a new motion?

Is an amended motion the same motion. I think it needs to be the very same motion or derivatives based on amendments done in meetings. A re-crafted motion with new information that was not added as amendment, seems to me to be a new motion, no mater how similar. Of course, that opens up the possibility that if people were not being collegial, purely hypothetically, a similar motion could be submitted each month ad infinitum. IS there ay provision for rejection of a motion without voting it down.

• The PDP Manual foresees that 'In the event that the GNSO Council does not approve the initiation of the PDP, not including the possible suspension of further consideration of the Final Issue Report as described above, any Councillor may appeal the denial, and request that the GNSO Council hold a renewed vote on the initiation of the PDP at the next subsequent GNSO Council meeting'. There are no further requirements attached to this 'renewed vote' - would this be considered an exception or would it need to be brought in line with the new requirements if/when approved?

As I remember this courtesy is also extend in some form to ACs who have requested a issues report. Do I remember correctly (I know, I could check). Perhaps this is the rule that should just be carried forward to all motions.

• A 12 month period appears to be a long time to be able to reconsider a motion – for example, there may be new information brought forward that may result in a change of opinion / vote of a SG/C that may warrant reconsideration of a motion or a certain urgency may require quicker reconsideration. Should a shorter time frame be considered, or at a minimum the possibility of an exception to this timeframe at the discretion of the Chair?

I agree Until some of the recent statements, I have thought of this a much more of a proximity problem. I.e. in the same meeting, at the next meeting or 2 at the latest..

If these questions were already considered, please feel free to ignore.

I do not think we even got close to any of these issues. thanks as for a repeat clause. How about once and in extraordinary circumstances (at the leadership's, C+VC, discretion) twice. avri ---------------------- 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

Good Group! Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700 One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 11:05 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion Anne, This is the list of members in the sub-group: Anne Aikman-Scalese, Avri Doria, Thomas Rickert and Mary Wong. Thanks, Julie On 6/6/13 1:59 PM, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrlaw.com> wrote:

Marika makes some very good points about potential conflicts related to other motion provisions. We may need to go back to the subgroup to study this. The subgroup was Mary, Thomas, me and anyone else? Anne

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP € Suite 700 One South Church Avenue € Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 € Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com € www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.

-----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 8:21 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion

On 5 Jun 2013, at 20:27, Marika Konings wrote:

...

Apologies if I'm raising questions / issues that have already been considered, but the following questions come to my mind: € Who makes a determination whether it considers a re-submission of a motion or whether it is considers a new motion? Does it have to be identical to be considered a re-submission? If a few words are added or whereas clauses are introduced, does that make it a new motion?

Is an amended motion the same motion. I think it needs to be the very same motion or derivatives based on amendments done in meetings.

A re-crafted motion with new information that was not added as amendment, seems to me to be a new motion, no mater how similar.

Of course, that opens up the possibility that if people were not being collegial, purely hypothetically, a similar motion could be submitted each month ad infinitum. IS there ay provision for rejection of a motion without voting it down.

...

€ The PDP Manual foresees that 'In the event that the GNSO Council does not approve the initiation of the PDP, not including the possible suspension of further consideration of the Final Issue Report as described above, any Councillor may appeal the denial, and request that the GNSO Council hold a renewed vote on the initiation of the PDP at the next subsequent GNSO Council meeting'. There are no further requirements attached to this 'renewed vote' - would this be considered an exception or would it need to be brought in line with the new requirements if/when approved?

As I remember this courtesy is also extend in some form to ACs who have requested a issues report. Do I remember correctly (I know, I could check).

Perhaps this is the rule that should just be carried forward to all motions.

...

€ A 12 month period appears to be a long time to be able to reconsider a motion ­ for example, there may be new information brought forward that may result in a change of opinion / vote of a SG/C that may warrant reconsideration of a motion or a certain urgency may require quicker reconsideration. Should a shorter time frame be considered, or at a minimum the possibility of an exception to this timeframe at the discretion of the Chair?

I agree Until some of the recent statements, I have thought of this a much more of a proximity problem. I.e. in the same meeting, at the next meeting or 2 at the latest..

...

If these questions were already considered, please feel free to ignore.

I do not think we even got close to any of these issues. thanks

as for a repeat clause. How about once and in extraordinary circumstances (at the leadership's, C+VC, discretion) twice.

avri

---------------------- 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

I agree with Avri. I also support the Registrars' proposal to add some kind of mechanism to prevent "zombie" motions. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Faculty Chair, Global IP Partnerships 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

...

...

From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> To: <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Date: 6/4/2013 4:44 PM Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion Hi, I support 1-3. As I understand it one would need to meet all 3 conditions, otherwise there would be no stopping it being on every agenda. Also I thought some wanted to add a rate throttling mechanism or a maximum count. I agree 4 is superfluous since any council member can ask for something to be taken off the consent agenda, not that i expect a resubmitted motion would ever make the consent agenda. avri On 4 Jun 2013, at 16:31, Julie Hedlund wrote:

Dear SCI members,

As discussed on today's call, we will continue discussion on the list on re-submission of a motion. There was agreement on option 2 (see below), but not on which criteria to include (see comments from Anne and James in their emails below).

Please send your comments to the list. This also will be on the agenda at our next meeting.

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Procedure for Re-Submission of a Motion:

Option 2 -- Set one or more high-level criteria (in this order):

1) Provide a reasoning to justify the resubmission of a motion. Complete no later than the deadline for submitting a motion -- 8 days prior to the next GNSO Council meeting. 2) Publish the text of the re-submitted motion. Complete no later than the deadline for submitting a motion -- 8 days prior to the next GNSO Council meeting. 3) Require a seconder of the motion from each house as a prerequisite for placing the re-submission of the motion on the consent agenda. 4) Allow a councilor to ask for the re-submission of the motion to be taken off the consent agenda and to request a Council vote on whether to accept the re-submission. --------------------------------------------------------------- From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrlaw.com> Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:42 PM To: Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: 'Jennifer Standiford' <JStandiford@web.com> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re: Action item from SCI Meeting 06 March Re-Submitting a Motion

Ron, I had wanted to report to SCI that in its full meeting in Beijing, the IPC agreed to the first two criteria listed in Item 2 of the "one or more high level criteria" to be set for resubmitting a motion.

Anne --------------------------------------------------------------------- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel?Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:51 PM?To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org?Cc: Jennifer Standiford?Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re: Action item from SCI Meeting 06 March -- Re-Submitting a Motion?Importance: High

Hello SCI Team:

Last week, Jennifer and I were able to consult with the Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) on this issue. We can report that RrSG members strongly favor Option #2.

Additionally, Registrars agree with the proposed criteria listed, -except- for item #2.4, which they note could be redundant if Items #2.1-#2.3 are followed. Finally, RrSG members would like to see the inclusion of some limitations (per year or minimum time frame) on how frequently a motion may be re-introduced.

We look forward to further discussions on our next call.

Thanks--

J.

Dear SCI members, Please also consider the questions raised on the list by Marika concerning this issue: * Who makes a determination whether it considers a re-submission of a motion or whether it is considers a new motion? Does it have to be identical to be considered a re-submission? If a few words are added or whereas clauses are introduced, does that make it a new motion? * The PDP Manual foresees that 'In the event that the GNSO Council does not approve the initiation of the PDP, not including the possible suspension of further consideration of the Final Issue Report as described above, any Councillor may appeal the denial, and request that the GNSO Council hold a renewed vote on the initiation of the PDP at the next subsequent GNSO Council meeting'. There are no further requirements attached to this 'renewed vote' - would this be considered an exception or would it need to be brought in line with the new requirements if/when approved? * A 12 month period appears to be a long time to be able to reconsider a motion ­ for example, there may be new information brought forward that may result in a change of opinion / vote of a SG/C that may warrant reconsideration of a motion or a certain urgency may require quicker reconsideration. Should a shorter time frame be considered, or at a minimum the possibility of an exception to this timeframe at the discretion of the Chair? Best regards, Julie From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Monday, July 1, 2013 1:51 PM To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion Dear SCI members, As discussed on our 04 June call, we will continue discussion on re-submission of a motion at our meeting tomorrow, 02 July. There was agreement on option 2 (see below), but not on which criteria to include (see comments from Anne and James in their emails below). Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Procedure for Re-Submission of a Motion: Option 2 -- Set one or more high-level criteria (in this order): 1) Provide a reasoning to justify the resubmission of a motion. Complete no later than the deadline for submitting a motion -- 8 days prior to the next GNSO Council meeting. 2) Publish the text of the re-submitted motion. Complete no later than the deadline for submitting a motion -- 8 days prior to the next GNSO Council meeting. 3) Require a seconder of the motion from each house as a prerequisite for placing the re-submission of the motion on the consent agenda. 4) Allow a councilor to ask for the re-submission of the motion to be taken off the consent agenda and to request a Council vote on whether to accept the re-submission. --------------------------------------------------------------- From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrlaw.com <mailto:AAikman@lrlaw.com> > Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:42 PM To: Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com <mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>

, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> >, "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> > Cc: 'Jennifer Standiford' <JStandiford@web.com <mailto:JStandiford@web.com>

Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re: Action item from SCI Meeting 06 March Re-Submitting a Motion Ron, I had wanted to report to SCI that in its full meeting in Beijing, the IPC agreed to the first two criteria listed in Item 2 of the "one or more high level criteria" to be set for resubmitting a motion. Anne --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 James M. Bladel?Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:51 PM?To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> ?Cc: Jennifer Standiford?Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re: Action item from SCI Meeting 06 March -- Re-Submitting a Motion?Importance: High Hello SCI Team: Last week, Jennifer and I were able to consult with the Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) on this issue. We can report that RrSG members strongly favor Option #2. Additionally, Registrars agree with the proposed criteria listed, -except- for item #2.4, which they note could be redundant if Items #2.1-#2.3 are followed. Finally, RrSG members would like to see the inclusion of some limitations (per year or minimum time frame) on how frequently a motion may be re-introduced. We look forward to further discussions on our next call. Thanks-- J.