From julie.hedlund at icann.org Tue Dec 4 18:58:08 2012 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 10:58:08 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Please Review: Draft Survey for GNSO Working Groups Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Below is a link to a Draft Survey for GNSO Working Groups. This survey is based on the latest version of the survey that we discussed. It would be helpful if the SCI members could try out the survey and provide comments on how it can be improved. We can discuss the timing of the survey review at our meeting on Thursday, 06 December. Link to Draft Survey for GNSO Working Groups: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FFTCJPT Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From KnobenW at telekom.de Wed Dec 5 20:46:30 2012 From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 21:46:30 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: Please Review: Draft Survey for GNSO Working Groups In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Julie, let's go forward with it. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Julie Hedlund Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. Dezember 2012 19:58 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Please Review: Draft Survey for GNSO Working Groups Dear SCI members, Below is a link to a Draft Survey for GNSO Working Groups. This survey is based on the latest version of the survey that we discussed. It would be helpful if the SCI members could try out the survey and provide comments on how it can be improved. We can discuss the timing of the survey review at our meeting on Thursday, 06 December. Link to Draft Survey for GNSO Working Groups: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FFTCJPT Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From KnobenW at telekom.de Wed Dec 5 21:35:39 2012 From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 22:35:39 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Agenda for 06 December Message-ID: All, here is a draft agenda for Thursday's meeting: 1. Roll call 2. Statement of Interests 3. Approval of the agenda 4. Chair and Vice Chair election: Avri Doria and Ron Andruff are nominated. There was support for a one-year term with a one-year extension from: Angie, Alain, Avri, James, and J. Scott. 5. Deferral of Motions: Updated response circulated by J. Scott after Toronto meeting 6. Update on Public Comments on Changes to the PDP Manual for Suspension of a PDP: Reply Comment period closed on 03 December. There was support from the Registries Stakeholder Group for the changes. 7. Raising an issue: Seems to be support for option nr 1 - maintain status quo 8. Status update on Working Group survey: Julie Hedlund will send a link to review the survey prior to the SCI meeting on 06 December 9. AOB Proposal for a (simple) election process to be discussed: 1. all members (primes + alternates) shall have 1 vote; staff not included; makes 13 votes. 2. Chair election - simple majority vote 3. The candidate with a simple majority of the votes is elected chair. The other candidate is elected vice-chair. 4. Draft ballot see attached Glen will serve as the election "manager". Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Ballot Form SCI chair 2013.doc Type: application/msword Size: 30208 bytes Desc: Ballot Form SCI chair 2013.doc URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Thu Dec 6 21:14:29 2012 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 13:14:29 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Message-ID: Dear SCI members, As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a clarification to the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. Please review the revised following text with the change in bold all caps: "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." For reference, I have included the entire section below so that the footnote may be viewed in context. It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is accepted by the SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if the SCI decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of Wednesday, 12 December.** With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of termination orsuspension. The following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a premature termination or suspension of a PDP: 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and resources being dedicated to the PDP; 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the initiation of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; or warranting a suspension; or 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack of volunteer participation. If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its termination, the Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). ________________________________ [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Thu Dec 6 21:27:57 2012 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 13:27:57 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] ACTION REQUESTED: Draft Survey for GNSO Working Groups In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Below is a link to a Draft Survey for GNSO Working Groups. As we discussed in our meeting today would be helpful if the SCI members could read the Working Group Guidelines (see link also below), take the survey, and provide comments on how the survey can be improved. **SCI members are requested to complete these actions and provide any comments by COB Wednesday, 19 December so that I may provide the results for our meeting on 20 December.** Link to the Working Group Guidelines: http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf Link to the Guidelines Summary: http://gnso.icann.org/council/summary-gnso-wg-guidelines-06apr11-en.pdf Link to Draft Survey for GNSO Working Groups: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FFTCJPT Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Thu Dec 6 21:32:01 2012 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 13:32:01 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] 06 Dec SCI Meeting: Actions/Notes Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Here are the actions and notes from today's meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Our next meeting will be held in two weeks on Thursday, 20 December at 2000 UTC. A meeting notice will be sent out separately. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions: 1. Chair and Vice Chair Election: Glen will send the ballot to the SCI members and alternates. The poll will be open for one week. 2. Deferral of Motions: Wolf-Ulrich will provide the results of the discussion to the GNSO Council. The SCI agreed to J.Scott's proposed language. There is no need for a motion. 3. Raising an Issue: Wolf-Ulrich will provide the results of the discussion to the GNSO Council. SCI members agreed to maintain the status quo. 4. Suspension of a PDP: SCI members will review the proposed revised footnote language (sent via separate email) by COB Monday. The results will determine whether a motion will be submitted to the Council on 12 December. 5. Working Group Survey: SCI members will review the Working Group Guidelines and take the Survey (sent via a separate email) by COB Wednesday, 19 December. Julie will compile the survey results and any comments and provide an update at the meeting on 20 December. Notes: 1. Chair and Vice Chair election: -- Start after today's meeting --Set a deadline of one week -- 13 December --1-year with option to extend 1 year Action: Glen will initiate the ballot. The poll will be open for 1 week. 2. Deferral of Motions: --Agreed to J. Scott's language Action: Wolf-Ulrich will provide the result of the discussion; no need for a motion 3. Motion re: PDP Manual Revision re: Suspension of a PDP: --How can a PDP be resumed? Addressed in the Footnote and include a specific timeline in the motion. --Needs to be specific language so that the language isn't open ended. Or put in a timeline for the motion to include, or a time for resumption, or resumption by majority vote. --Put in "stated" in front ot "time interval" in the footnote as a clarification and not put it out for public comment. Action: Julie will send the revised footnote to the list. Comment requested by Monday the 10th. 4. Raising an issue ? Support for option nr 1 ? maintain status quo Action: Wolf-Ulrich will put this forward to the Council 5. Status update on Working Group survey" --Is this coming from the latest guidelines -- February 2010? Why not send the Guidelines to every Working Group? Marike: It is the latest version. We do send the guidelines to new Working Groups. There also is a 4-page summary.. Action: SCI members: Review the guildelines and complete the survey. Deadline by 19 December. 6. AOB: Next Meeting; 20 December at the same time.2000 UTC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Thu Dec 6 22:04:15 2012 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 22:04:15 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: 06 Dec SCI Meeting: Actions/Notes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DCE437B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Regarding Item 2, I think it was actually agreed that the proposed change would be put out to the full SCI for comment and that is what in fact happened. [cid:126180322 at 06122012-1A2F]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 at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 2:32 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] 06 Dec SCI Meeting: Actions/Notes Dear SCI members, Here are the actions and notes from today's meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Our next meeting will be held in two weeks on Thursday, 20 December at 2000 UTC. A meeting notice will be sent out separately. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions: 1. Chair and Vice Chair Election: Glen will send the ballot to the SCI members and alternates. The poll will be open for one week. 2. Deferral of Motions: Wolf-Ulrich will provide the results of the discussion to the GNSO Council. The SCI agreed to J.Scott's proposed language. There is no need for a motion. 3. Raising an Issue: Wolf-Ulrich will provide the results of the discussion to the GNSO Council. SCI members agreed to maintain the status quo. 4. Suspension of a PDP: SCI members will review the proposed revised footnote language (sent via separate email) by COB Monday. The results will determine whether a motion will be submitted to the Council on 12 December. 5. Working Group Survey: SCI members will review the Working Group Guidelines and take the Survey (sent via a separate email) by COB Wednesday, 19 December. Julie will compile the survey results and any comments and provide an update at the meeting on 20 December. Notes: 1. Chair and Vice Chair election: -- Start after today's meeting --Set a deadline of one week -- 13 December --1-year with option to extend 1 year Action: Glen will initiate the ballot. The poll will be open for 1 week. 2. Deferral of Motions: --Agreed to J. Scott's language Action: Wolf-Ulrich will provide the result of the discussion; no need for a motion 3. Motion re: PDP Manual Revision re: Suspension of a PDP: --How can a PDP be resumed? Addressed in the Footnote and include a specific timeline in the motion. --Needs to be specific language so that the language isn't open ended. Or put in a timeline for the motion to include, or a time for resumption, or resumption by majority vote. --Put in "stated" in front ot "time interval" in the footnote as a clarification and not put it out for public comment. Action: Julie will send the revised footnote to the list. Comment requested by Monday the 10th. 4. Raising an issue ? Support for option nr 1 ? maintain status quo Action: Wolf-Ulrich will put this forward to the Council 5. Status update on Working Group survey" --Is this coming from the latest guidelines -- February 2010? Why not send the Guidelines to every Working Group? Marike: It is the latest version. We do send the guidelines to new Working Groups. There also is a 4-page summary.. Action: SCI members: Review the guildelines and complete the survey. Deadline by 19 December. 6. AOB: Next Meeting; 20 December at the same time.2000 UTC ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Thu Dec 6 22:15:30 2012 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 14:15:30 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: 06 Dec SCI Meeting: Actions/Notes In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DCE437B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Dear Anne, I apologize but I am not sure I understand your comment. I had thought that Item 2, Deferral of Motions, was actually agreed to at the meeting on the 14th of November, which Wolf-Ulrich confirmed today. The language (the response from the SCI to the Council on this issue) had been sent out with a minor change by J. Scott to the full SCI following the meeting in Toronto. There were no further changes to the response language. Thus, all that is necessary is for Wolf-Ulrich to inform the Council of the result of the discussion using this response as agreed to by the SCI: "The SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date in those situations where a formal process for a deferral is not specifically provided (for example, certain deferrals are foreseen as part of the GNSO PDP, see http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16dec11-en.pdf). The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative or the negative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situation that may occur with regard to this informal practice.' If I have misunderstood your reference again I apologize. With best regards, Julie From: , Anne > Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 5:04 PM To: Julie Hedlund >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: RE: 06 Dec SCI Meeting: Actions/Notes Regarding Item 2, I think it was actually agreed that the proposed change would be put out to the full SCI for comment and that is what in fact happened. [cid:126180322 at 06122012-1A2F]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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 2:32 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] 06 Dec SCI Meeting: Actions/Notes Dear SCI members, Here are the actions and notes from today's meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Our next meeting will be held in two weeks on Thursday, 20 December at 2000 UTC. A meeting notice will be sent out separately. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions: 1. Chair and Vice Chair Election: Glen will send the ballot to the SCI members and alternates. The poll will be open for one week. 2. Deferral of Motions: Wolf-Ulrich will provide the results of the discussion to the GNSO Council. The SCI agreed to J.Scott's proposed language. There is no need for a motion. 3. Raising an Issue: Wolf-Ulrich will provide the results of the discussion to the GNSO Council. SCI members agreed to maintain the status quo. 4. Suspension of a PDP: SCI members will review the proposed revised footnote language (sent via separate email) by COB Monday. The results will determine whether a motion will be submitted to the Council on 12 December. 5. Working Group Survey: SCI members will review the Working Group Guidelines and take the Survey (sent via a separate email) by COB Wednesday, 19 December. Julie will compile the survey results and any comments and provide an update at the meeting on 20 December. Notes: 1. Chair and Vice Chair election: -- Start after today's meeting --Set a deadline of one week -- 13 December --1-year with option to extend 1 year Action: Glen will initiate the ballot. The poll will be open for 1 week. 2. Deferral of Motions: --Agreed to J. Scott's language Action: Wolf-Ulrich will provide the result of the discussion; no need for a motion 3. Motion re: PDP Manual Revision re: Suspension of a PDP: --How can a PDP be resumed? Addressed in the Footnote and include a specific timeline in the motion. --Needs to be specific language so that the language isn't open ended. Or put in a timeline for the motion to include, or a time for resumption, or resumption by majority vote. --Put in "stated" in front ot "time interval" in the footnote as a clarification and not put it out for public comment. Action: Julie will send the revised footnote to the list. Comment requested by Monday the 10th. 4. Raising an issue ? Support for option nr 1 ? maintain status quo Action: Wolf-Ulrich will put this forward to the Council 5. Status update on Working Group survey" --Is this coming from the latest guidelines -- February 2010? Why not send the Guidelines to every Working Group? Marike: It is the latest version. We do send the guidelines to new Working Groups. There also is a 4-page summary.. Action: SCI members: Review the guildelines and complete the survey. Deadline by 19 December. 6. AOB: Next Meeting; 20 December at the same time.2000 UTC ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Thu Dec 6 22:28:56 2012 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 14:28:56 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Actions re: Deferral of Motions & Raising an Issue Message-ID: Dear Wolf-Ulrich, As noted today, you have the action to notify the GNSO Council of the results of the discussions by the SCI on Deferral of Motions and Raising an Issue. To assist you with this action, I've included below the language that was agreed to by the SCI for responses to the Council. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Deferral of Motions: (Response language that was accepted by the SCI, including J. Scott's proposed changes.) The SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date in those situations where a formal process for a deferral is not specifically provided (for example, certain deferrals are foreseen as part of the GNSO PDP, see http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16dec11-en.pdf). The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative or the negative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situation that may occur with regard to this informal practice. Raising an Issue: (Incorporates response language from the SCI.) The SCI was asked to consider who can raise an issue for SCI consideration. After deliberating on this matter, the SCI agreed to maintain the status quo according to the Charter of the SCI. This means only the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council can request an item to be reviewed by the SCI. However, the GNSO Council could possibly consider communicating to other SO/ACs / individuals, that if there are issues they would like to see reviewed by the SCI they will need to channel these via the GNSO Council and/or a group chartered by the GNSO Council. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Thu Dec 6 21:32:03 2012 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 21:32:03 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DCE215C@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? If "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would not apply. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Dear SCI members, As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a clarification to the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. Please review the revised following text with the change in bold all caps: "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." For reference, I have included the entire section below so that the footnote may be viewed in context. It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is accepted by the SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if the SCI decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of Wednesday, 12 December.** With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of termination orsuspension. The following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a premature termination or suspension of a PDP: 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and resources being dedicated to the PDP; 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the initiation of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; or warranting a suspension; or 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack of volunteer participation. If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its termination, the Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). ________________________________ [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Thu Dec 6 22:53:03 2012 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 22:53:03 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: 06 Dec SCI Meeting: Actions/Notes In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DCE437B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com>, Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DCE446D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Sorry Julie. You are correct and it was my mistake. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 3:15pm To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Subject: Re: 06 Dec SCI Meeting: Actions/Notes Dear Anne, I apologize but I am not sure I understand your comment. I had thought that Item 2, Deferral of Motions, was actually agreed to at the meeting on the 14th of November, which Wolf-Ulrich confirmed today. The language (the response from the SCI to the Council on this issue) had been sent out with a minor change by J. Scott to the full SCI following the meeting in Toronto. There were no further changes to the response language. Thus, all that is necessary is for Wolf-Ulrich to inform the Council of the result of the discussion using this response as agreed to by the SCI: "The SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date in those situations where a formal process for a deferral is not specifically provided (for example, certain deferrals are foreseen as part of the GNSO PDP, see http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16dec11-en.pdf). The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative or the negative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situation that may occur with regard to this informal practice.' If I have misunderstood your reference again I apologize. With best regards, Julie From: , Anne > Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 5:04 PM To: Julie Hedlund >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: RE: 06 Dec SCI Meeting: Actions/Notes Regarding Item 2, I think it was actually agreed that the proposed change would be put out to the full SCI for comment and that is what in fact happened. [cid:126180322 at 06122012-1A2F]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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 2:32 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] 06 Dec SCI Meeting: Actions/Notes Dear SCI members, Here are the actions and notes from today's meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Our next meeting will be held in two weeks on Thursday, 20 December at 2000 UTC. A meeting notice will be sent out separately. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions: 1. Chair and Vice Chair Election: Glen will send the ballot to the SCI members and alternates. The poll will be open for one week. 2. Deferral of Motions: Wolf-Ulrich will provide the results of the discussion to the GNSO Council. The SCI agreed to J.Scott's proposed language. There is no need for a motion. 3. Raising an Issue: Wolf-Ulrich will provide the results of the discussion to the GNSO Council. SCI members agreed to maintain the status quo. 4. Suspension of a PDP: SCI members will review the proposed revised footnote language (sent via separate email) by COB Monday. The results will determine whether a motion will be submitted to the Council on 12 December. 5. Working Group Survey: SCI members will review the Working Group Guidelines and take the Survey (sent via a separate email) by COB Wednesday, 19 December. Julie will compile the survey results and any comments and provide an update at the meeting on 20 December. Notes: 1. Chair and Vice Chair election: -- Start after today's meeting --Set a deadline of one week -- 13 December --1-year with option to extend 1 year Action: Glen will initiate the ballot. The poll will be open for 1 week. 2. Deferral of Motions: --Agreed to J. Scott's language Action: Wolf-Ulrich will provide the result of the discussion; no need for a motion 3. Motion re: PDP Manual Revision re: Suspension of a PDP: --How can a PDP be resumed? Addressed in the Footnote and include a specific timeline in the motion. --Needs to be specific language so that the language isn't open ended. Or put in a timeline for the motion to include, or a time for resumption, or resumption by majority vote. --Put in "stated" in front ot "time interval" in the footnote as a clarification and not put it out for public comment. Action: Julie will send the revised footnote to the list. Comment requested by Monday the 10th. 4. Raising an issue ? Support for option nr 1 ? maintain status quo Action: Wolf-Ulrich will put this forward to the Council 5. Status update on Working Group survey" --Is this coming from the latest guidelines -- February 2010? Why not send the Guidelines to every Working Group? Marike: It is the latest version. We do send the guidelines to new Working Groups. There also is a 4-page summary.. Action: SCI members: Review the guildelines and complete the survey. Deadline by 19 December. 6. AOB: Next Meeting; 20 December at the same time.2000 UTC ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Thu Dec 6 22:56:26 2012 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 14:56:26 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: 06 Dec SCI Meeting: Actions/Notes In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DCE446D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Thanks Anne and I do appreciate that you read the notes. It is always helpful to have someone review them and comment. With best regards, Julie From: , Anne > Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 5:53 PM To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, Julie Hedlund > Subject: Re: 06 Dec SCI Meeting: Actions/Notes Sorry Julie. You are correct and it was my mistake. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 3:15pm To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Subject: Re: 06 Dec SCI Meeting: Actions/Notes Dear Anne, I apologize but I am not sure I understand your comment. I had thought that Item 2, Deferral of Motions, was actually agreed to at the meeting on the 14th of November, which Wolf-Ulrich confirmed today. The language (the response from the SCI to the Council on this issue) had been sent out with a minor change by J. Scott to the full SCI following the meeting in Toronto. There were no further changes to the response language. Thus, all that is necessary is for Wolf-Ulrich to inform the Council of the result of the discussion using this response as agreed to by the SCI: "The SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date in those situations where a formal process for a deferral is not specifically provided (for example, certain deferrals are foreseen as part of the GNSO PDP, see http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16dec11-en.pdf). The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative or the negative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situation that may occur with regard to this informal practice.' If I have misunderstood your reference again I apologize. With best regards, Julie From: , Anne > Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 5:04 PM To: Julie Hedlund >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: RE: 06 Dec SCI Meeting: Actions/Notes Regarding Item 2, I think it was actually agreed that the proposed change would be put out to the full SCI for comment and that is what in fact happened. [cid:126180322 at 06122012-1A2F]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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 2:32 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] 06 Dec SCI Meeting: Actions/Notes Dear SCI members, Here are the actions and notes from today's meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Our next meeting will be held in two weeks on Thursday, 20 December at 2000 UTC. A meeting notice will be sent out separately. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions: 1. Chair and Vice Chair Election: Glen will send the ballot to the SCI members and alternates. The poll will be open for one week. 2. Deferral of Motions: Wolf-Ulrich will provide the results of the discussion to the GNSO Council. The SCI agreed to J.Scott's proposed language. There is no need for a motion. 3. Raising an Issue: Wolf-Ulrich will provide the results of the discussion to the GNSO Council. SCI members agreed to maintain the status quo. 4. Suspension of a PDP: SCI members will review the proposed revised footnote language (sent via separate email) by COB Monday. The results will determine whether a motion will be submitted to the Council on 12 December. 5. Working Group Survey: SCI members will review the Working Group Guidelines and take the Survey (sent via a separate email) by COB Wednesday, 19 December. Julie will compile the survey results and any comments and provide an update at the meeting on 20 December. Notes: 1. Chair and Vice Chair election: -- Start after today's meeting --Set a deadline of one week -- 13 December --1-year with option to extend 1 year Action: Glen will initiate the ballot. The poll will be open for 1 week. 2. Deferral of Motions: --Agreed to J. Scott's language Action: Wolf-Ulrich will provide the result of the discussion; no need for a motion 3. Motion re: PDP Manual Revision re: Suspension of a PDP: --How can a PDP be resumed? Addressed in the Footnote and include a specific timeline in the motion. --Needs to be specific language so that the language isn't open ended. Or put in a timeline for the motion to include, or a time for resumption, or resumption by majority vote. --Put in "stated" in front ot "time interval" in the footnote as a clarification and not put it out for public comment. Action: Julie will send the revised footnote to the list. Comment requested by Monday the 10th. 4. Raising an issue ? Support for option nr 1 ? maintain status quo Action: Wolf-Ulrich will put this forward to the Council 5. Status update on Working Group survey" --Is this coming from the latest guidelines -- February 2010? Why not send the Guidelines to every Working Group? Marike: It is the latest version. We do send the guidelines to new Working Groups. There also is a 4-page summary.. Action: SCI members: Review the guildelines and complete the survey. Deadline by 19 December. 6. AOB: Next Meeting; 20 December at the same time.2000 UTC ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From julia.charvolen at icann.org Fri Dec 7 00:19:05 2012 From: julia.charvolen at icann.org (Julia Charvolen) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 16:19:05 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] MP3 recording SCI meeting - Thursday 6 December 2012 Message-ID: Dear All, The next call for the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting is scheduled on Thursday 20 December 2012 at 20:00 UTC Please find the MP3 rerecording and transcript of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Thursday 6 December 2012 at 20:00UTC. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20121206-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#dec (transcripts and recording are found on the calendar page) Attendees: Ray Fassett ? RySG Ronald Andruff ? Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Primary Wolf-Ulrich Knoben ? ISPCP ? Primary J. Scott Evans ? IPC Primary Avri Doria ? Non Commercial SG ? Primary Anne Aikman-Scalese ? IPC Alternate Apologies : Angie Graves ? Commercial and Business Users Constituency ? Alternate Mary Wong -NCUC James Bladel ? Registrar Stakeholder Group - Alternate Jennifer Standiford ICANN Staff: Marika Konings Julia Charvolen ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Julia Charvolen For GNSO Secretariat Adobe Connect chat transcript: Julie Hedlund:Welcome Avri Julie Hedlund:Hi Anne Ron A:Just fell off the call, but was not suggesting you would loss ;o) avri:Ron, it is quite alreaight. It is midnight here and it sounded that way to me, but it amused me. no worries. you have to realie i have been doing ITU and diplomatic double talk to 2.5 weeks now. avri:... for 2.5 weeks now avri:Really good question Ron A:@ Avri - I feel your pain... Ron A:@ Anne: That is my issue avri:Yes, it could be easy to just add a line that says a suspeiton must be for a fixed length of time. avri:but who give notice. and what is the vote thershold of that motion. Ron A:For those who have served on the Council, this may not be an issue, but from the outside looking in, it looks like an open loop. Ron A:Or better said: loophole Marika Konings:No new vote would be required - the motion would contain the 'timeinterval' for suspension as noted in the footnote at which point the PDP would resume J. Scott:I think Marika has made a very valid point Marika Konings:with the previous instance ('thick' Whois) the PDP was restarted (without a vote) before the actual end date of the original suspension Marika Konings:as there was Council agreement J. Scott:Yes, Wolf-Ulrich. I was saying "simple majority" Ron A:IF the time suspension is included in the motion, THEN I am okay with this. J. Scott:What if we insert the term "stated" before the wording "time interval" avri:i need to drop off now. Marika Konings:I think that would be a useful clarification avri:will stay on adobe Ron A:I support J Scott's proposal Ray Fassett:agree with J Scott. Appears to me the issue is making clear that a time interval to resume is inherent with the suspension Marika Konings:Exactly - no other vote required if timeframe is included in the motion Marika Konings:it would automatically restart, unless the Council would take another vote Ray Fassett:I think the time interval should be case by case vs. hard scripting Marika Konings:http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf Marika Konings:There is also a summary: http://gnso.icann.org/council/summary-gnso-wg-guidelines-06apr11-en.pdf Ron A:Thank you, Marika. Wolf Knoben:Thanks to all -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Fri Dec 7 04:46:09 2012 From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 23:46:09 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] MP3 recording SCI meeting - Thursday 6 December 2012 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50C12E410200005B0009D135@smtp.law.unh.edu> Ugh, that will be 3 a.m. in the morning for me as I will be in Singapore, but I'll try to make it ... :) Thanks everyone! 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 at 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: Julia Charvolen To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" CC: "gnso-secs at icann.org" Date: 12/6/2012 7:20 PM Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] MP3 recording SCI meeting - Thursday 6 December 2012 Dear All, The next call for the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting is scheduled on Thursday 20 December 2012 at 20:00 UTC Please find the MP3 rerecording and transcript of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Thursday 6 December 2012 at 20:00UTC. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20121206-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#dec (transcripts and recording are found on the calendar page) Attendees: Ray Fassett ? RySG Ronald Andruff ? Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Primary Wolf-Ulrich Knoben ? ISPCP ? Primary J. Scott Evans ? IPC Primary Avri Doria ? Non Commercial SG ? Primary Anne Aikman-Scalese ? IPC Alternate Apologies : Angie Graves ? Commercial and Business Users Constituency ? Alternate Mary Wong -NCUC James Bladel ? Registrar Stakeholder Group - Alternate Jennifer Standiford ICANN Staff: Marika Konings Julia Charvolen ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Julia Charvolen For GNSO Secretariat Adobe Connect chat transcript: Julie Hedlund:Welcome Avri Julie Hedlund:Hi Anne Ron A:Just fell off the call, but was not suggesting you would loss ;o) avri:Ron, it is quite alreaight. It is midnight here and it sounded that way to me, but it amused me. no worries. you have to realie i have been doing ITU and diplomatic double talk to 2.5 weeks now. avri:... for 2.5 weeks now avri:Really good question Ron A:@ Avri - I feel your pain... Ron A:@ Anne: That is my issue avri:Yes, it could be easy to just add a line that says a suspeiton must be for a fixed length of time. avri:but who give notice. and what is the vote thershold of that motion. Ron A:For those who have served on the Council, this may not be an issue, but from the outside looking in, it looks like an open loop. Ron A:Or better said: loophole Marika Konings:No new vote would be required - the motion would contain the 'timeinterval' for suspension as noted in the footnote at which point the PDP would resume J. Scott:I think Marika has made a very valid point Marika Konings:with the previous instance ('thick' Whois) the PDP was restarted (without a vote) before the actual end date of the original suspension Marika Konings:as there was Council agreement J. Scott:Yes, Wolf-Ulrich. I was saying "simple majority" Ron A:IF the time suspension is included in the motion, THEN I am okay with this. J. Scott:What if we insert the term "stated" before the wording "time interval" avri:i need to drop off now. Marika Konings:I think that would be a useful clarification avri:will stay on adobe Ron A:I support J Scott's proposal Ray Fassett:agree with J Scott. Appears to me the issue is making clear that a time interval to resume is inherent with the suspension Marika Konings:Exactly - no other vote required if timeframe is included in the motion Marika Konings:it would automatically restart, unless the Council would take another vote Ray Fassett:I think the time interval should be case by case vs. hard scripting Marika Konings:http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf Marika Konings:There is also a summary: http://gnso.icann.org/council/summary-gnso-wg-guidelines-06apr11-en.pdf Ron A:Thank you, Marika. Wolf Knoben:Thanks to all -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From KnobenW at telekom.de Fri Dec 7 15:47:31 2012 From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 16:47:31 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: Actions re: Deferral of Motions & Raising an Issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for your assistance, Julie, very helpful. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. Dezember 2012 23:29 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: Actions re: Deferral of Motions & Raising an Issue Dear Wolf-Ulrich, As noted today, you have the action to notify the GNSO Council of the results of the discussions by the SCI on Deferral of Motions and Raising an Issue. To assist you with this action, I've included below the language that was agreed to by the SCI for responses to the Council. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Deferral of Motions: (Response language that was accepted by the SCI, including J. Scott's proposed changes.) The SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date in those situations where a formal process for a deferral is not specifically provided (for example, certain deferrals are foreseen as part of the GNSO PDP, see http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16dec11-en.pdf). The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative or the negative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situation that may occur with regard to this informal practice. Raising an Issue: (Incorporates response language from the SCI.) The SCI was asked to consider who can raise an issue for SCI consideration. After deliberating on this matter, the SCI agreed to maintain the status quo according to the Charter of the SCI. This means only the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council can request an item to be reviewed by the SCI. However, the GNSO Council could possibly consider communicating to other SO/ACs / individuals, that if there are issues they would like to see reviewed by the SCI they will need to channel these via the GNSO Council and/or a group chartered by the GNSO Council. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Fri Dec 7 16:40:35 2012 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 08:40:35 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DCE215C@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be deleted? If so, here's an amended text for all to review. Best regards, Julie "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." From: , Anne > Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, Julie Hedlund > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? If "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would not apply. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Dear SCI members, As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a clarification to the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. Please review the revised following text with the change in bold all caps: "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." For reference, I have included the entire section below so that the footnote may be viewed in context. It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is accepted by the SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if the SCI decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of Wednesday, 12 December.** With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of termination orsuspension. The following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a premature termination or suspension of a PDP: 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and resources being dedicated to the PDP; 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the initiation of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; or warranting a suspension; or 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack of volunteer participation. If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its termination, the Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). ________________________________ [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jscottevans at yahoo.com Fri Dec 7 17:19:46 2012 From: jscottevans at yahoo.com (J. Scott Evans) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 09:19:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DCE215C@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <1354900786.69098.YahooMailNeo@web161006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public comment since it merely clarifies the suspension. jse ? j. scott evans - ?head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com ________________________________ From: Julie Hedlund To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" ; "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Thanks Anne. ?Then, would you want "until further notice" to be deleted? ?If so, here's an amended text for all to review. ? Best regards, Julie "Suspension is a?STATED?time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." From: , Anne Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , Julie Hedlund Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? If "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would not apply. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Dear SCI members, As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a clarification to the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. ?Please review the revised following text with the change in bold all caps: "Suspension is a?STATED?time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." For reference, I have included the entire section below so that the footnote may be viewed in context. ? It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is accepted by the SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if the SCI decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of Wednesday, 12 December.** With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director 15.??? Termination of PDP prior to Final Report The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of termination orsuspension. The following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a premature termination or suspension of a PDP: ? 1.???? Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and resources being dedicated to the PDP; 2.???? Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the initiation of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; or warranting a suspension; or 3.???? Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack of volunteer participation.? ? If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its termination, the Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). ________________________________ [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. ? ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Fri Dec 7 17:42:42 2012 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 17:42:42 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: <1354900786.69098.YahooMailNeo@web161006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DCE215C@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <1354900786.69098.YahooMailNeo@web161006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DCE845C@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board says, "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an answer - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and the Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's "oasis" announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure increases to take control away from ICANN. I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up at the GNSO level. Anne [cid:749593717 at 07122012-1BBA]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 at LRLaw.com * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I can live with that and I don't think this require further public comment since it merely clarifies the suspension. jse j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com ________________________________ From: Julie Hedlund To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" ; "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be deleted? If so, here's an amended text for all to review. Best regards, Julie "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." From: , Anne > Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, Julie Hedlund > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? If "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would not apply. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Dear SCI members, As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a clarification to the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. Please review the revised following text with the change in bold all caps: "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." For reference, I have included the entire section below so that the footnote may be viewed in context. It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is accepted by the SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if the SCI decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of Wednesday, 12 December.** With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of termination orsuspension. The following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a premature termination or suspension of a PDP: 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and resources being dedicated to the PDP; 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the initiation of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; or warranting a suspension; or 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack of volunteer participation. If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its termination, the Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). ________________________________ [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From KnobenW at telekom.de Sat Dec 8 14:26:58 2012 From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 15:26:58 +0100 Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DCE845C@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DCE215C@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <1354900786.69098.YahooMailNeo@web161006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DCE845C@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Anne and all, this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation that the council should follow a related board request. I think this could be the case depending on a council debate following the board request but there is no obligation to do so. With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by Julie? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board says, "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an answer - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and the Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's "oasis" announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure increases to take control away from ICANN. I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up at the GNSO level. Anne [cid:175371214 at 08122012-0896]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 at LRLaw.com * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I can live with that and I don't think this require further public comment since it merely clarifies the suspension. jse j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com ________________________________ From: Julie Hedlund To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" ; "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be deleted? If so, here's an amended text for all to review. Best regards, Julie "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." From: , Anne > Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, Julie Hedlund > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? If "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would not apply. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Dear SCI members, As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a clarification to the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. Please review the revised following text with the change in bold all caps: "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." For reference, I have included the entire section below so that the footnote may be viewed in context. It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is accepted by the SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if the SCI decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of Wednesday, 12 December.** With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of termination orsuspension. The following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a premature termination or suspension of a PDP: 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and resources being dedicated to the PDP; 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the initiation of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; or warranting a suspension; or 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack of volunteer participation. If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its termination, the Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). ________________________________ [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From avri at acm.org Sat Dec 8 14:46:48 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 18:46:48 +0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DCE215C@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <1354900786.69098.YahooMailNeo@web161006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DCE845C@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <1E79CB45-C92B-48E0-936F-2D84021F537B@acm.org> Hi, I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one their preemptory decisions. Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. I am fine with the footnote. thanks. avri On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, wrote: > Anne and all, > > this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation that the council should follow a related board request. I think this could be the case depending on a council debate following the board request but there is no obligation to do so. > > With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by Julie? > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne > Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 > An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board says, "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an answer - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? > > Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and the Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's "oasis" announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure increases to take control away from ICANN. > > I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up at the GNSO level. > > 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 at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman > > > P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. > > This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information > intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. > If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the > agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are > hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or > copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication > was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. > > > > > From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM > To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > I can live with that and I don't think this require further public comment since it merely clarifies the suspension. > > jse > > j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com > > > From: Julie Hedlund > To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" ; "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be deleted? If so, here's an amended text for all to review. > > Best regards, > Julie > > "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." > > From: , Anne > Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM > To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , Julie Hedlund > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? If "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would not apply. Anne > > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] > Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Dear SCI members, > > As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a clarification to the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. Please review the revised following text with the change in bold all caps: > > "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." > > For reference, I have included the entire section below so that the footnote may be viewed in context. > > It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is accepted by the SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. > > **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if the SCI decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of Wednesday, 12 December.** > > With best regards, > > Julie > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > > 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report > > The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of termination orsuspension. The following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a premature termination or suspension of a PDP: > > 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and resources being dedicated to the PDP; > 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the initiation of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; or warranting a suspension; or > 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack of volunteer participation. > > If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its termination, the Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). > > [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. > > 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. > > From randruff at rnapartners.com Sat Dec 8 22:04:10 2012 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 17:04:10 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: <1E79CB45-C92B-48E0-936F-2D84021F537B@acm.org> Message-ID: <8A3ECD196323480CA7B5C2EEE16C10F9@ron> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic principles. I support the footnote amendment as proposed. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one their preemptory decisions. Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. I am fine with the footnote. thanks. avri On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, wrote: > Anne and all, > > this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation that the council should follow a related board request. I think this could be the case depending on a council debate following the board request but there is no obligation to do so. > > With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by Julie? > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne > Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 > An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board says, "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an answer - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? > > Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and the Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's "oasis" announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure increases to take control away from ICANN. > > I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up at the GNSO level. > > 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 at LRLaw.com . www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman > > > P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. > > This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information > intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. > If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the > agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are > hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or > copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication > was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. > > > > > From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM > To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > I can live with that and I don't think this require further public comment since it merely clarifies the suspension. > > jse > > j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com > > > From: Julie Hedlund > To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" ; "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be deleted? If so, here's an amended text for all to review. > > Best regards, > Julie > > "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." > > From: , Anne > Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM > To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , Julie Hedlund > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? If "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would not apply. Anne > > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] > Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Dear SCI members, > > As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a clarification to the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. Please review the revised following text with the change in bold all caps: > > "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." > > For reference, I have included the entire section below so that the footnote may be viewed in context. > > It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is accepted by the SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. > > **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if the SCI decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of Wednesday, 12 December.** > > With best regards, > > Julie > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > > 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report > > The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of termination orsuspension. The following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a premature termination or suspension of a PDP: > > 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and resources being dedicated to the PDP; > 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the initiation of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; or warranting a suspension; or > 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack of volunteer participation. > > If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its termination, the Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). > > [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. > > 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. > > From AAikman at lrlaw.com Sat Dec 8 23:20:31 2012 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 23:20:31 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: <8A3ECD196323480CA7B5C2EEE16C10F9@ron> References: <1E79CB45-C92B-48E0-936F-2D84021F537B@acm.org>,<8A3ECD196323480CA7B5C2EEE16C10F9@ron> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DCEA9C3@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic principles. I support the footnote amendment as proposed. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one their preemptory decisions. Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. I am fine with the footnote. thanks. avri On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, wrote: > Anne and all, > > this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation that the council should follow a related board request. I think this could be the case depending on a council debate following the board request but there is no obligation to do so. > > With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by Julie? > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne > Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 > An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board says, "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an answer - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? > > Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and the Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's "oasis" announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure increases to take control away from ICANN. > > I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up at the GNSO level. > > 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 at LRLaw.com . www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman > > > P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. > > This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information > intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. > If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the > agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are > hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or > copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication > was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. > > > > > From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM > To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > I can live with that and I don't think this require further public comment since it merely clarifies the suspension. > > jse > > j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com > > > From: Julie Hedlund > To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" ; "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be deleted? If so, here's an amended text for all to review. > > Best regards, > Julie > > "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." > > From: , Anne > Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM > To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , Julie Hedlund > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? If "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would not apply. Anne > > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] > Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Dear SCI members, > > As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a clarification to the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. Please review the revised following text with the change in bold all caps: > > "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." > > For reference, I have included the entire section below so that the footnote may be viewed in context. > > It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is accepted by the SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. > > **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if the SCI decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of Wednesday, 12 December.** > > With best regards, > > Julie > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > > 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report > > The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of termination orsuspension. The following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a premature termination or suspension of a PDP: > > 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and resources being dedicated to the PDP; > 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the initiation of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; or warranting a suspension; or > 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack of volunteer participation. > > If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its termination, the Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). > > [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. > > 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. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Sun Dec 9 04:39:23 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 08:39:23 +0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DCEA9C3@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <1E79CB45-C92B-48E0-936F-2D84021F537B@acm.org>,<8A3ECD196323480CA7B5C2EEE16C10F9@ron> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DCEA9C3@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Hi, As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. Specifically: " March 212 20120314-1 Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' Whois Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois at its meeting on 22 September 2011 (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); .... " " November 2012 20121017-2 Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of international organizations at the first and second levels in the New gTLD Program. .... " Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS " Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue Report. .... Section 5. Initiation of the PDP The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. No vote is required for such action. " avri On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne > > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] > Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm > To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > > I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit policy > that has been developed through the bottom up process into rule by way of > resolution. Although the history of the Board's actions to date might prove > otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN environment we should expect the Board > to conform to ICANN's basic principles. > > I support the footnote amendment as proposed. > > Kind regards, > > RA > > Ronald N. Andruff > RNA Partners, Inc. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed > Revised Footnote > > > Hi, > > I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever suspended > a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect they would either > wait, question the postponement, or make one their preemptory decisions. > Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - though they > can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this point, and in any case > think it is a separate issue from the suspension mechanism. All other PDPs > are g-council decsions, even if the issues report is requested by one of the > ACs. > > I am fine with the footnote. thanks. > > avri > > > > On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, wrote: > > > Anne and all, > > > > this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council > decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation that the > council should follow a related board request. I think this could be the > case depending on a council debate following the board request but there is > no obligation to do so. > > > > With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by Julie? > > > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > > > Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von > Aikman-Scalese, Anne > > Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 > > An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > > > This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board says, > "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an answer - go > back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? > > > > Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and the > Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's "oasis" > announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure increases to > take control away from ICANN. > > > > I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up at the > GNSO level. > > > > 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 at LRLaw.com . www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman > > > > > > P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. > > > > This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information > > intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. > > If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the > > agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are > > hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or > > copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication > > was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the > original message. > > > > > > > > > > From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] > > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM > > To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > > > I can live with that and I don't think this require further public comment > since it merely clarifies the suspension. > > > > jse > > > > j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. > - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com > > > > > > From: Julie Hedlund > > To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" ; > "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > > Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM > > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > > > Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be deleted? > If so, here's an amended text for all to review. > > > > Best regards, > > Julie > > > > "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary > cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the > GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not > considered a suspension." > > > > From: , Anne > > Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM > > To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , > Julie Hedlund > > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > > > What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? If > "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would not apply. > Anne > > > > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] > > Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm > > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] > > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed > Revised Footnote > > > > Dear SCI members, > > > > As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a clarification to > the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. > Please review the revised following text with the change in bold all caps: > > > > "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary > cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the > GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule > of the PDP is not considered a suspension." > > > > For reference, I have included the entire section below so that the > footnote may be viewed in context. > > > > It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is accepted by the > SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. > > > > **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if the SCI > decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of Wednesday, 12 > December.** > > > > With best regards, > > > > Julie > > > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > > > > 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report > > > > The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the > publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a motion that > passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of termination orsuspension. The > following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a premature > termination or suspension of a PDP: > > > > 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to > identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong support > or a consensus of its members despite significant time and resources being > dedicated to the PDP; > > 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the initiation > of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; or > warranting a suspension; or > > 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for > participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired and unable > to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack of volunteer > participation. > > > > If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its termination, the > Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior to > conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). > > > > [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary > cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the > GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of > the PDP is not considered a suspension. > > > > 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. > > > > From KnobenW at telekom.de Sun Dec 9 07:12:24 2012 From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 08:12:24 +0100 Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: References: <1E79CB45-C92B-48E0-936F-2D84021F537B@acm.org>,<8A3ECD196323480CA7B5C2EEE16C10F9@ron> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DCEA9C3@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. Specifically: " March 212 20120314-1 Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' Whois Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois at its meeting on 22 September 2011 (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); .... " " November 2012 20121017-2 Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of international organizations at the first and second levels in the New gTLD Program. .... " Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS " Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue Report. .... Section 5. Initiation of the PDP The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. No vote is required for such action. " avri On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne > > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] > Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm > To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > > I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit policy > that has been developed through the bottom up process into rule by way of > resolution. Although the history of the Board's actions to date might prove > otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN environment we should expect the Board > to conform to ICANN's basic principles. > > I support the footnote amendment as proposed. > > Kind regards, > > RA > > Ronald N. Andruff > RNA Partners, Inc. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed > Revised Footnote > > > Hi, > > I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever suspended > a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect they would either > wait, question the postponement, or make one their preemptory decisions. > Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - though they > can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this point, and in any case > think it is a separate issue from the suspension mechanism. All other PDPs > are g-council decsions, even if the issues report is requested by one of the > ACs. > > I am fine with the footnote. thanks. > > avri > > > > On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, wrote: > > > Anne and all, > > > > this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council > decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation that the > council should follow a related board request. I think this could be the > case depending on a council debate following the board request but there is > no obligation to do so. > > > > With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by Julie? > > > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > > > Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von > Aikman-Scalese, Anne > > Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 > > An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > > > This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board says, > "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an answer - go > back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? > > > > Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and the > Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's "oasis" > announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure increases to > take control away from ICANN. > > > > I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up at the > GNSO level. > > > > 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 at LRLaw.com . www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman > > > > > > P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. > > > > This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information > > intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. > > If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the > > agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are > > hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or > > copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication > > was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the > original message. > > > > > > > > > > From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] > > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM > > To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > > > I can live with that and I don't think this require further public comment > since it merely clarifies the suspension. > > > > jse > > > > j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. > - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com > > > > > > From: Julie Hedlund > > To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" ; > "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > > Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM > > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > > > Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be deleted? > If so, here's an amended text for all to review. > > > > Best regards, > > Julie > > > > "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary > cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the > GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not > considered a suspension." > > > > From: , Anne > > Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM > > To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , > Julie Hedlund > > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > > > What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? If > "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would not apply. > Anne > > > > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] > > Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm > > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] > > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed > Revised Footnote > > > > Dear SCI members, > > > > As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a clarification to > the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. > Please review the revised following text with the change in bold all caps: > > > > "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary > cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the > GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule > of the PDP is not considered a suspension." > > > > For reference, I have included the entire section below so that the > footnote may be viewed in context. > > > > It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is accepted by the > SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. > > > > **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if the SCI > decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of Wednesday, 12 > December.** > > > > With best regards, > > > > Julie > > > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > > > > 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report > > > > The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the > publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a motion that > passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of termination orsuspension. The > following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a premature > termination or suspension of a PDP: > > > > 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to > identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong support > or a consensus of its members despite significant time and resources being > dedicated to the PDP; > > 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the initiation > of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; or > warranting a suspension; or > > 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for > participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired and unable > to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack of volunteer > participation. > > > > If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its termination, the > Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior to > conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). > > > > [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary > cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the > GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of > the PDP is not considered a suspension. > > > > 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. > > > > From marika.konings at icann.org Sun Dec 9 11:05:09 2012 From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 03:05:09 -0800 Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. With best regards, Marika On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" wrote: > >Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. > > >Best regards >Wolf-Ulrich > > >-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria >Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > >Hi, > >As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they have >not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. The >g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. These are >still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for the PDP, there >never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >Specifically: > >" >March 212 20120314-1 >Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >Whois > >Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois at >its meeting on 22 September 2011 >(seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); > >.... >" > >" >November 2012 20121017-2 >Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. > >Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >international organizations at the first and second levels in the New >gTLD Program. > >.... >" > >Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS > >" >Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report > >Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing the >GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. In >the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the Board should >provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can consult with the Board >to provide information on the scope, timing, and priority of the request >for an Issue Report. > >.... > >Section 5. Initiation of the PDP > >The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: > >Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. No >vote is required for such action. >" > >avri > > >On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > >> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP and >>IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >> >> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>[gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> >> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit policy >> that has been developed through the bottom up process into rule by way >>of >> resolution. Although the history of the Board's actions to date might >>prove >> otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN environment we should expect the >>Board >> to conform to ICANN's basic principles. >> >> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> RA >> >> Ronald N. Andruff >> RNA Partners, Inc. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>PDP--Proposed >> Revised Footnote >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>suspended >> a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect they would >>either >> wait, question the postponement, or make one their preemptory decisions. >> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - though >>they >> can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this point, and in any >>case >> think it is a separate issue from the suspension mechanism. All other >>PDPs >> are g-council decsions, even if the issues report is requested by one >>of the >> ACs. >> >> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >> >> avri >> >> >> >> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, >>wrote: >> >> > Anne and all, >> > >> > this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation that the >> council should follow a related board request. I think this could be the >> case depending on a council debate following the board request but >>there is >> no obligation to do so. >> > >> > With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>Julie? >> > >> > Best regards >> > Wolf-Ulrich >> > >> > >> > Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >> > Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >> > An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> > Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> > >> > This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>says, >> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an answer - >>go >> back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >> > >> > Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and the >> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>"oasis" >> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure increases >>to >> take control away from ICANN. >> > >> > I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up at >>the >> GNSO level. >> > >> > 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 at LRLaw.com . www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >> > >> > >> > P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >> > >> > This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information >> > intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. >> > If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the >> > agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are >> > hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or >> > copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication >> > was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the >> original message. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >> > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >> > To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> > >> > I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>comment >> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >> > >> > jse >> > >> > j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>Inc. >> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >> > >> > >> > From: Julie Hedlund >> > To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" ; >> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >> > Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >> > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> > >> > Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>deleted? >> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >> > >> > Best regards, >> > Julie >> > >> > "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>temporary >> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of >>the >> GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not >> considered a suspension." >> > >> > From: , Anne >> > Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >> > To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>, >> Julie Hedlund >> > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> > >> > What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>If >> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would not >>apply. >> Anne >> > >> > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >> > Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >> > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >> > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>PDP--Proposed >> Revised Footnote >> > >> > Dear SCI members, >> > >> > As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>clarification to >> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold all >>caps: >> > >> > "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>temporary >> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of >>the >> GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or >>schedule >> of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >> > >> > For reference, I have included the entire section below so that the >> footnote may be viewed in context. >> > >> > It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is accepted >>by the >> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >> > >> > **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if the >>SCI >> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of Wednesday, 12 >> December.** >> > >> > With best regards, >> > >> > Julie >> > >> > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >> > >> > 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >> > >> > The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a motion >>that >> passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of termination orsuspension. >>The >> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a premature >> termination or suspension of a PDP: >> > >> > 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>support >> or a consensus of its members despite significant time and resources >>being >> dedicated to the PDP; >> > 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>initiation >> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; or >> warranting a suspension; or >> > 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired and >>unable >> to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack of volunteer >> participation. >> > >> > If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its termination, >>the >> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior to >> conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >> > >> > [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>temporary >> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of >>the >> GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in milestones or >>schedule of >> the PDP is not considered a suspension. >> > >> > 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. >> > >> > > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5045 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avri at acm.org Sun Dec 9 11:27:18 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 15:27:18 +0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks. I missed the RAA request being a Board PDP and forgot about the purpose of WHOIS one. avri On 9 Dec 2012, at 15:05, Marika Konings wrote: > To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the RAA > ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation of an > Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process (PDP) as > quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a PDP) and the > recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois ('hereby directs > preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of collecting and > maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions to improve accuracy > and access to gTLD registration data, as part of a Board-initiated GNSO > policy development process'). As pointed out by Avri, for PDPs initiated > by the ICANN Board, there is no intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the > PDP automatically proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the > case of a Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by > which the GNSO > Council can consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, > timing, and priority of the request for an Issue Report'. In addition to > this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO Council meet at every ICANN > meeting where there is another opportunity to discuss and/or express > concerns with regard to Board requested PDPs. For example, in relation to > the RAA PDP, as a result of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO > Council it was agreed to 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were > near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be > included in the PDP. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" wrote: > >> >> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >> >> >> Best regards >> Wolf-Ulrich >> >> >> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria >> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> >> Hi, >> >> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they have >> not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. The >> g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. These are >> still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for the PDP, there >> never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >> Specifically: >> >> " >> March 212 20120314-1 >> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >> Whois >> >> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois at >> its meeting on 22 September 2011 >> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >> >> .... >> " >> >> " >> November 2012 20121017-2 >> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >> >> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >> international organizations at the first and second levels in the New >> gTLD Program. >> >> .... >> " >> >> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >> >> " >> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >> >> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing the >> GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. In >> the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the Board should >> provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can consult with the Board >> to provide information on the scope, timing, and priority of the request >> for an Issue Report. >> >> .... >> >> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >> >> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >> >> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. No >> vote is required for such action. >> " >> >> avri >> >> >> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >> >>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP and >>> IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>> >>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit policy >>> that has been developed through the bottom up process into rule by way >>> of >>> resolution. Although the history of the Board's actions to date might >>> prove >>> otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN environment we should expect the >>> Board >>> to conform to ICANN's basic principles. >>> >>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> RA >>> >>> Ronald N. Andruff >>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed >>> Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>> suspended >>> a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect they would >>> either >>> wait, question the postponement, or make one their preemptory decisions. >>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - though >>> they >>> can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this point, and in any >>> case >>> think it is a separate issue from the suspension mechanism. All other >>> PDPs >>> are g-council decsions, even if the issues report is requested by one >>> of the >>> ACs. >>> >>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Anne and all, >>>> >>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation that the >>> council should follow a related board request. I think this could be the >>> case depending on a council debate following the board request but >>> there is >>> no obligation to do so. >>>> >>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>> Julie? >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>> >>>> >>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>> says, >>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an answer - >>> go >>> back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >>>> >>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and the >>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>> "oasis" >>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure increases >>> to >>> take control away from ICANN. >>>> >>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up at >>> the >>> GNSO level. >>>> >>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>> >>>> >>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>> >>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information >>>> intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. >>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the >>>> agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are >>>> hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or >>>> copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication >>>> was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the >>> original message. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>> comment >>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>> >>>> jse >>>> >>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>> Inc. >>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Julie Hedlund >>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" ; >>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>> deleted? >>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Julie >>>> >>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>> temporary >>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of >>> the >>> GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not >>> considered a suspension." >>>> >>>> From: , Anne >>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>> , >>> Julie Hedlund >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>> If >>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would not >>> apply. >>> Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed >>> Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> Dear SCI members, >>>> >>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>> clarification to >>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold all >>> caps: >>>> >>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>> temporary >>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of >>> the >>> GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or >>> schedule >>> of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>> >>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that the >>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>> >>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is accepted >>> by the >>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>> >>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if the >>> SCI >>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of Wednesday, 12 >>> December.** >>>> >>>> With best regards, >>>> >>>> Julie >>>> >>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>> >>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>> >>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a motion >>> that >>> passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of termination orsuspension. >>> The >>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a premature >>> termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>> >>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>> support >>> or a consensus of its members despite significant time and resources >>> being >>> dedicated to the PDP; >>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>> initiation >>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; or >>> warranting a suspension; or >>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired and >>> unable >>> to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack of volunteer >>> participation. >>>> >>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its termination, >>> the >>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior to >>> conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>>> >>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>> temporary >>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of >>> the >>> GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in milestones or >>> schedule of >>> the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >> >> >> From KnobenW at telekom.de Sun Dec 9 19:01:42 2012 From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 20:01:42 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI membership Message-ID: All, you recall that all three Nominating Committee Appointees to the GNSO council (NCA) have expressed interest in following Carlos Aguirre as SCI member. They have decided that Jennifer Wolfe shall be the primary and Thomas Rickert the alternate member. I herewith welcome both to the Committee. Glen, please add Jen and Thomas to the mailing list and provide them with a ballot for the ongoing chair election. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Glen at icann.org Sun Dec 9 19:27:10 2012 From: Glen at icann.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Glen_de_Saint_G=E9ry?=) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 11:27:10 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: SCI membership In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Wolf-Ulrich. Jennifer and Thomas have been added to the mailing list and both have been sent ballots for the ongoing chair election. Kind regards, Glen De : owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] De la part de KnobenW at telekom.de Envoy? : dimanche 9 d?cembre 2012 20:02 ? : gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc : jwolfe at wolfe-sbmc.com; rickert at anwaelte.de Objet : [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI membership All, you recall that all three Nominating Committee Appointees to the GNSO council (NCA) have expressed interest in following Carlos Aguirre as SCI member. They have decided that Jennifer Wolfe shall be the primary and Thomas Rickert the alternate member. I herewith welcome both to the Committee. Glen, please add Jen and Thomas to the mailing list and provide them with a ballot for the ongoing chair election. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Mon Dec 10 04:14:17 2012 From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2012 23:14:17 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50C51B490200005B0009D29B@smtp.law.unh.edu> Between Avri and Marika, I think they've covered and explained things superbly. I agree that what (and whether) the Board can/will do if the GNSO Council decides to suspend a Board-initiated PDP is a separate question from what we're considering - how to deal with that will be up to the Council. I think that the present wording, as amended after Anne's comment, works and I support it. 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 at 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: Avri Doria To: Date: 12/9/2012 6:28 AM Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Thanks. I missed the RAA request being a Board PDP and forgot about the purpose of WHOIS one. avri On 9 Dec 2012, at 15:05, Marika Konings wrote: > To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the RAA > ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation of an > Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process (PDP) as > quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a PDP) and the > recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois ('hereby directs > preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of collecting and > maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions to improve accuracy > and access to gTLD registration data, as part of a Board-initiated GNSO > policy development process'). As pointed out by Avri, for PDPs initiated > by the ICANN Board, there is no intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the > PDP automatically proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the > case of a Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by > which the GNSO > Council can consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, > timing, and priority of the request for an Issue Report'. In addition to > this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO Council meet at every ICANN > meeting where there is another opportunity to discuss and/or express > concerns with regard to Board requested PDPs. For example, in relation to > the RAA PDP, as a result of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO > Council it was agreed to 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were > near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be > included in the PDP. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" wrote: > >> >> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >> >> >> Best regards >> Wolf-Ulrich >> >> >> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria >> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> >> Hi, >> >> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they have >> not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. The >> g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. These are >> still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for the PDP, there >> never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >> Specifically: >> >> " >> March 212 20120314-1 >> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >> Whois >> >> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois at >> its meeting on 22 September 2011 >> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >> >> .... >> " >> >> " >> November 2012 20121017-2 >> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >> >> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >> international organizations at the first and second levels in the New >> gTLD Program. >> >> .... >> " >> >> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >> >> " >> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >> >> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing the >> GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. In >> the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the Board should >> provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can consult with the Board >> to provide information on the scope, timing, and priority of the request >> for an Issue Report. >> >> .... >> >> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >> >> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >> >> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. No >> vote is required for such action. >> " >> >> avri >> >> >> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >> >>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP and >>> IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>> >>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit policy >>> that has been developed through the bottom up process into rule by way >>> of >>> resolution. Although the history of the Board's actions to date might >>> prove >>> otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN environment we should expect the >>> Board >>> to conform to ICANN's basic principles. >>> >>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> RA >>> >>> Ronald N. Andruff >>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed >>> Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>> suspended >>> a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect they would >>> either >>> wait, question the postponement, or make one their preemptory decisions. >>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - though >>> they >>> can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this point, and in any >>> case >>> think it is a separate issue from the suspension mechanism. All other >>> PDPs >>> are g-council decsions, even if the issues report is requested by one >>> of the >>> ACs. >>> >>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Anne and all, >>>> >>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation that the >>> council should follow a related board request. I think this could be the >>> case depending on a council debate following the board request but >>> there is >>> no obligation to do so. >>>> >>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>> Julie? >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>> >>>> >>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>> says, >>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an answer - >>> go >>> back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >>>> >>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and the >>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>> "oasis" >>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure increases >>> to >>> take control away from ICANN. >>>> >>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up at >>> the >>> GNSO level. >>>> >>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>> >>>> >>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>> >>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information >>>> intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. >>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the >>>> agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are >>>> hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or >>>> copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication >>>> was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the >>> original message. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>> comment >>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>> >>>> jse >>>> >>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>> Inc. >>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Julie Hedlund >>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" ; >>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>> deleted? >>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Julie >>>> >>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>> temporary >>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of >>> the >>> GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not >>> considered a suspension." >>>> >>>> From: , Anne >>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>> , >>> Julie Hedlund >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>> If >>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would not >>> apply. >>> Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed >>> Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> Dear SCI members, >>>> >>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>> clarification to >>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold all >>> caps: >>>> >>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>> temporary >>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of >>> the >>> GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or >>> schedule >>> of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>> >>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that the >>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>> >>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is accepted >>> by the >>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>> >>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if the >>> SCI >>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of Wednesday, 12 >>> December.** >>>> >>>> With best regards, >>>> >>>> Julie >>>> >>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>> >>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>> >>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a motion >>> that >>> passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of termination orsuspension. >>> The >>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a premature >>> termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>> >>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>> support >>> or a consensus of its members despite significant time and resources >>> being >>> dedicated to the PDP; >>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>> initiation >>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; or >>> warranting a suspension; or >>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired and >>> unable >>> to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack of volunteer >>> participation. >>>> >>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its termination, >>> the >>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior to >>> conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>>> >>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>> temporary >>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of >>> the >>> GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in milestones or >>> schedule of >>> the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Mon Dec 10 18:19:34 2012 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 18:19:34 +0000 Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DCEDC4D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position where it has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not answered our questions." This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. With best regards, Marika On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" wrote: > >Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. > > >Best regards >Wolf-Ulrich > > >-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri >Doria >Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > >Hi, > >As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. The >g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. These >are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for the PDP, >there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >Specifically: > >" >March 212 20120314-1 >Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >Whois > >Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois at >its meeting on 22 September 2011 >(seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); > >.... >" > >" >November 2012 20121017-2 >Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. > >Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >international organizations at the first and second levels in the New >gTLD Program. > >.... >" > >Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS > >" >Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report > >Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing the >GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. >In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the Board >should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can consult with >the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, and priority of >the request for an Issue Report. > >.... > >Section 5. Initiation of the PDP > >The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: > >Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >No vote is required for such action. >" > >avri > > >On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > >> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >>and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >> >> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>[gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> >> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit >>policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into >>rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's >>actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >>environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic >>principles. >> >> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> RA >> >> Ronald N. Andruff >> RNA Partners, Inc. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>Doria >> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one their >>preemptory decisions. >> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >>though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >>point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the >>suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even if >>the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >> >> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >> >> avri >> >> >> >> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, >>wrote: >> >> > Anne and all, >> > >> > this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation that >>the council should follow a related board request. I think this could >>be the case depending on a council debate following the board request >>but there is no obligation to do so. >> > >> > With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>Julie? >> > >> > Best regards >> > Wolf-Ulrich >> > >> > >> > Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >> > Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >> > An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >> > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> > Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> > >> > This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>says, >> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an answer >>- go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >> > >> > Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and >> > the >> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>"oasis" >> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>increases to take control away from ICANN. >> > >> > I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >> > at >>the >> GNSO level. >> > >> > 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 at LRLaw.com . >> > www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >> > >> > >> > P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >> > >> > This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >> > information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. >> > If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the >> > agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are >> > hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or >> > copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication >> > was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete >> > the >> original message. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >> > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >> > To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> > >> > I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>comment >> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >> > >> > jse >> > >> > j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>Inc. >> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >> > >> > >> > From: Julie Hedlund >> > To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" ; >> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >> > Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >> > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> > >> > Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>deleted? >> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >> > >> > Best regards, >> > Julie >> > >> > "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>temporary >> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision >>of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the >>PDP is not considered a suspension." >> > >> > From: , Anne >> > Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >> > To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>, >> Julie Hedlund >> > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> > >> > What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>If >> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would not >>apply. >> Anne >> > >> > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >> > Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >> > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> > [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >> > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>PDP--Proposed >> Revised Footnote >> > >> > Dear SCI members, >> > >> > As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>clarification to >> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold all >>caps: >> > >> > "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>temporary >> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision >>of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones >>or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >> > >> > For reference, I have included the entire section below so that the >> footnote may be viewed in context. >> > >> > It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is accepted >>by the >> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >> > >> > **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >> > the >>SCI >> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of Wednesday, >>12 >> December.** >> > >> > With best regards, >> > >> > Julie >> > >> > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >> > >> > 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >> > >> > The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a >>motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of termination >>orsuspension. >>The >> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >> > >> > 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and >>resources being dedicated to the PDP; >> > 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>initiation >> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; >>or warranting a suspension; or >> > 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired and >>unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack of >>volunteer participation. >> > >> > If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >> > termination, >>the >> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior to >>conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >> > >> > [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>temporary >> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision >>of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in milestones >>or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. >> > >> > 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. >> > >> > > > > From marika.konings at icann.org Tue Dec 11 09:51:48 2012 From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 01:51:48 -0800 Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DCEDC4D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. With best regards, Marika On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" wrote: >Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls its >questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in initiation >of a PDP seems less important substantively than the reference to >continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, timing, and >priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there has to be some >provision for communication with or involvement of the Board in >connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is commenced as a >result of a Board request for "answers" or for an Issue Report. A >unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on Supermajority vote) where >the PDP was initiated as a result of such a Board request, is problematic >if the Board needs to act. Is there a provision for providing the Board >with a full report as to the status of the PDP and maybe summarizing the >differing opinions expressed where no consensus was reached in the event >of termination or suspension? We should not leave the Board in the >position where it has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not >acted and has not answered our questions." This is particularly >unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >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 at 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 at icann.org >[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings >Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > >To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the RAA >('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation of an >Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process (PDP) as >quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a PDP) and the >recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois ('hereby directs >preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of collecting and >maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions to improve accuracy >and access to gTLD registration data, as part of a Board-initiated GNSO >policy development process'). As pointed out by Avri, for PDPs initiated >by the ICANN Board, there is no intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, >the PDP automatically proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in >the case of a Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism >by which the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide >information on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an >Issue Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another opportunity to >discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board requested PDPs. For >example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result of dialogue between the >ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to 'suspend' the PDP until the >RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which >topics would need to be included in the PDP. > >With best regards, > >Marika > >On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" wrote: > >> >>Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >> >> >>Best regards >>Wolf-Ulrich >> >> >>-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri >>Doria >>Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> >>Hi, >> >>As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. The >>g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. These >>are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for the PDP, >>there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >>Specifically: >> >>" >>March 212 20120314-1 >>Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >>Whois >> >>Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois at >>its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>(seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >> >>.... >>" >> >>" >>November 2012 20121017-2 >>Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >> >>Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>international organizations at the first and second levels in the New >>gTLD Program. >> >>.... >>" >> >>Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >> >>" >>Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >> >>Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing the >>GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. >>In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the Board >>should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can consult with >>the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, and priority of >>the request for an Issue Report. >> >>.... >> >>Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >> >>The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >> >>Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >>within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >>No vote is required for such action. >>" >> >>avri >> >> >>On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >> >>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >>>and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>> >>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>[gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit >>>policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into >>>rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's >>>actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >>>environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic >>>principles. >>> >>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> RA >>> >>> Ronald N. Andruff >>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>>Doria >>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>>suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>>they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one their >>>preemptory decisions. >>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >>>though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >>>point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the >>>suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even if >>>the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >>> >>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, >>>wrote: >>> >>> > Anne and all, >>> > >>> > this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation that >>>the council should follow a related board request. I think this could >>>be the case depending on a council debate following the board request >>>but there is no obligation to do so. >>> > >>> > With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>>Julie? >>> > >>> > Best regards >>> > Wolf-Ulrich >>> > >>> > >>> > Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>> > Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>> > An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>> > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> > Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> > >>> > This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>>says, >>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an answer >>>- go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >>> > >>> > Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and >>> > the >>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>>"oasis" >>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>increases to take control away from ICANN. >>> > >>> > I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >>> > at >>>the >>> GNSO level. >>> > >>> > 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 at LRLaw.com . >>> > www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>> > >>> > >>> > P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>> > >>> > This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>> > information intended only for the individual or entity named within >>>the message. >>> > If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the >>> > agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are >>> > hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or >>> > copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication >>> > was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete >>> > the >>> original message. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>> > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>> > To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> > >>> > I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>>comment >>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>> > >>> > jse >>> > >>> > j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>>Inc. >>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >>> > >>> > >>> > From: Julie Hedlund >>> > To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" ; >>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>> > Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>> > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> > >>> > Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>>deleted? >>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>> > >>> > Best regards, >>> > Julie >>> > >>> > "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>temporary >>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision >>>of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the >>>PDP is not considered a suspension." >>> > >>> > From: , Anne >>> > Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>> > To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>, >>> Julie Hedlund >>> > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> > >>> > What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>>If >>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would not >>>apply. >>> Anne >>> > >>> > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>> > >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>> > Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>> > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> > [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>> > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>PDP--Proposed >>> Revised Footnote >>> > >>> > Dear SCI members, >>> > >>> > As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>clarification to >>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold all >>>caps: >>> > >>> > "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>temporary >>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision >>>of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones >>>or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>> > >>> > For reference, I have included the entire section below so that the >>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>> > >>> > It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is accepted >>>by the >>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>> > >>> > **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >>> > the >>>SCI >>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of Wednesday, >>>12 >>> December.** >>> > >>> > With best regards, >>> > >>> > Julie >>> > >>> > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>> > >>> > 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>> > >>> > The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a >>>motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of termination >>>orsuspension. >>>The >>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>>premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >>> > >>> > 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>>support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and >>>resources being dedicated to the PDP; >>> > 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>>initiation >>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; >>>or warranting a suspension; or >>> > 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired and >>>unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack of >>>volunteer participation. >>> > >>> > If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>> > termination, >>>the >>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior to >>>conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>> > >>> > [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>temporary >>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision >>>of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in milestones >>>or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>> > >>> > 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. >>> > >>> > >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5045 bytes Desc: not available URL: From KnobenW at telekom.de Tue Dec 11 10:28:30 2012 From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 11:28:30 +0100 Subject: AW: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DCEDC4D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7m Type: application/x-pkcs7-mime Size: 309232 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avri at acm.org Tue Dec 11 16:38:30 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:38:30 +0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DCEDC4D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <84FC335A-0674-44AB-BFA7-3FC873FA96E4@acm.org> Hi, Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still concerned. avri On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, wrote: > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also examples > of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the Board after the > GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been initiated to provide > input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). It is > then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in the case of > vertical integration, the Board made the following decision, absent GNSO > Council recommendations: > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" wrote: > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls its >> questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in initiation >> of a PDP seems less important substantively than the reference to >> continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, timing, and >> priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there has to be some >> provision for communication with or involvement of the Board in >> connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is commenced as a >> result of a Board request for "answers" or for an Issue Report. A >> unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on Supermajority vote) where >> the PDP was initiated as a result of such a Board request, is problematic >> if the Board needs to act. Is there a provision for providing the Board >> with a full report as to the status of the PDP and maybe summarizing the >> differing opinions expressed where no consensus was reached in the event >> of termination or suspension? We should not leave the Board in the >> position where it has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not >> acted and has not answered our questions." This is particularly >> unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >> 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 at 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 at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the RAA >> ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation of an >> Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process (PDP) as >> quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a PDP) and the >> recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois ('hereby directs >> preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of collecting and >> maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions to improve accuracy >> and access to gTLD registration data, as part of a Board-initiated GNSO >> policy development process'). As pointed out by Avri, for PDPs initiated >> by the ICANN Board, there is no intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, >> the PDP automatically proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in >> the case of a Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism >> by which the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide >> information on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an >> Issue Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another opportunity to >> discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board requested PDPs. For >> example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result of dialogue between the >> ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to 'suspend' the PDP until the >> RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which >> topics would need to be included in the PDP. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri >>> Doria >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. The >>> g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. These >>> are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for the PDP, >>> there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >>> Specifically: >>> >>> " >>> March 212 20120314-1 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >>> Whois >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois at >>> its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> " >>> November 2012 20121017-2 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the New >>> gTLD Program. >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >>> >>> " >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >>> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing the >>> GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the Board >>> should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can consult with >>> the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, and priority of >>> the request for an Issue Report. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >>> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >>> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >>> No vote is required for such action. >>> " >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>>> Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one their >>>> preemptory decisions. >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even if >>>> the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >>>> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anne and all, >>>>> >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation that >>>> the council should follow a related board request. I think this could >>>> be the case depending on a council debate following the board request >>>> but there is no obligation to do so. >>>>> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>>> Julie? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>>> says, >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an answer >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >>>>> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and >>>>> the >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>>> "oasis" >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >>>>> at >>>> the >>>> GNSO level. >>>>> >>>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named within >>>> the message. >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the >>>>> agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are >>>>> hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or >>>>> copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication >>>>> was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete >>>>> the >>>> original message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>>> comment >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>>> >>>>> jse >>>>> >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>>> Inc. >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" ; >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>>> deleted? >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision >>>> of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the >>>> PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> From: , Anne >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>> , >>>> Julie Hedlund >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>>> If >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would not >>>> apply. >>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed >>>> Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>> clarification to >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold all >>>> caps: >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision >>>> of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones >>>> or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that the >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>>> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is accepted >>>> by the >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>>> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >>>>> the >>>> SCI >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of Wednesday, >>>> 12 >>>> December.** >>>>> >>>>> With best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of termination >>>> orsuspension. >>>> The >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>>> support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>>> initiation >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; >>>> or warranting a suspension; or >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired and >>>> unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack of >>>> volunteer participation. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>>>> termination, >>>> the >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior to >>>> conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>>>> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision >>>> of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in milestones >>>> or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > From AAikman at lrlaw.com Tue Dec 11 16:45:02 2012 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 16:45:02 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: <84FC335A-0674-44AB-BFA7-3FC873FA96E4@acm.org> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DCEDC4D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <84FC335A-0674-44AB-BFA7-3FC873FA96E4@acm.org> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DD05E8A@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't think we are unanimous. 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still concerned. avri On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, wrote: > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" wrote: > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position where it >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not >> answered our questions." This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >> 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 at 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 at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >> Konings >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri >>> Doria >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >>> Specifically: >>> >>> " >>> March 212 20120314-1 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >>> Whois >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> " >>> November 2012 20121017-2 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the >>> New gTLD Program. >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >>> >>> " >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >>> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >>> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >>> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >>> No vote is required for such action. >>> " >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>>> Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one >>>> their preemptory decisions. >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >>>> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anne and all, >>>>> >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation >>>> that the council should follow a related board request. I think >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debate following the >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. >>>>> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>>> Julie? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>>> says, >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an >>>> answer >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >>>>> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and >>>>> the >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>>> "oasis" >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >>>>> at >>>> the >>>> GNSO level. >>>>> >>>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named >>>>> within >>>> the message. >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply >>>>> e-mail and delete the >>>> original message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>>> comment >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>>> >>>>> jse >>>>> >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>>> Inc. >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" ; >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>>> deleted? >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> From: , Anne >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>> , >>>> Julie Hedlund >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>>> If >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would >>>> not apply. >>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed >>>> Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>> clarification to >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold >>>> all >>>> caps: >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change >>>> in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that >>>>> the >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>>> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is >>>>> accepted >>>> by the >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>>> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >>>>> the >>>> SCI >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of >>>> Wednesday, >>>> 12 >>>> December.** >>>>> >>>>> With best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of >>>> termination orsuspension. >>>> The >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>>> support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>>> initiation >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; >>>> or warranting a suspension; or >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack >>>> of volunteer participation. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>>>> termination, >>>> the >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>>>> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > PDP.docx> From alain.berranger at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 17:07:58 2012 From: alain.berranger at gmail.com (Alain Berranger) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:07:58 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thks 4 clarification Marika. Very useful! Alain On Sunday, December 9, 2012, Marika Konings wrote: > To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the RAA > ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation of an > Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process (PDP) as > quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a PDP) and the > recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois ('hereby directs > preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of collecting and > maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions to improve accuracy > and access to gTLD registration data, as part of a Board-initiated GNSO > policy development process'). As pointed out by Avri, for PDPs initiated > by the ICANN Board, there is no intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the > PDP automatically proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the > case of a Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by > which the GNSO > Council can consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, > timing, and priority of the request for an Issue Report'. In addition to > this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO Council meet at every ICANN > meeting where there is another opportunity to discuss and/or express > concerns with regard to Board requested PDPs. For example, in relation to > the RAA PDP, as a result of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO > Council it was agreed to 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were > near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be > included in the PDP. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" wrote: > > > > >Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. > > > > > >Best regards > >Wolf-Ulrich > > > > > >-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > >Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria > >Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 > >An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > > > > >Hi, > > > >As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they have > >not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. The > >g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. These are > >still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for the PDP, there > >never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. > >Specifically: > > > >" > >March 212 20120314-1 > >Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' > >Whois > > > >Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois at > >its meeting on 22 September 2011 > >(seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); > > > >.... > >" > > > >" > >November 2012 20121017-2 > >Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the > >Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. > > > >Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of > >whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of > >international organizations at the first and second levels in the New > >gTLD Program. > > > >.... > >" > > > >Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS > > > >" > >Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report > > > >Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing the > >GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. In > >the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the Board should > >provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can consult with the Board > >to provide information on the scope, timing, and priority of the request > >for an Issue Report. > > > >.... > > > >Section 5. Initiation of the PDP > > > >The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: > > > >Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, > >within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. No > >vote is required for such action. > >" > > > >avri > > > > > >On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > > > >> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP and > >>IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne > >> > >> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] > >> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm > >> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>[gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] > >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >>PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > >> > >> > >> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit policy > >> that has been developed through the bottom up process into rule by way > >>of > >> resolution. Although the history of the Board's actions to date might > >>prove > >> otherwise, in -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l?employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu?il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alain.berranger at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 17:09:47 2012 From: alain.berranger at gmail.com (Alain Berranger) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:09:47 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: <50C51B490200005B0009D29B@smtp.law.unh.edu> References: <50C51B490200005B0009D29B@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: I agree with Mary and support it too, Alain On Sunday, December 9, 2012, wrote: > Between Avri and Marika, I think they've covered and explained things > superbly. I agree that what (and whether) the Board can/will do if the GNSO > Council decides to suspend a Board-initiated PDP is a separate question > from what we're considering - how to deal with that will be up to the > Council. I think that the present wording, as amended after Anne's comment, > works and I support it. > > 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 at law.unh.edu 'mary.wong at 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: * > > Avri Doria > > > *To:* > > 'gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org');>> > > *Date: * > > 12/9/2012 6:28 AM > > *Subject: * > > Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised > Footnote > > > Thanks. I missed the RAA request being a Board PDP and forgot about the > purpose of WHOIS one. > > avri > > > > On 9 Dec 2012, at 15:05, Marika Konings wrote: > > > To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the RAA > > ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation of an > > Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process (PDP) as > > quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a PDP) and the > > recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois ('hereby directs > > preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of collecting and > > maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions to improve accuracy > > and access to gTLD registration data, as part of a Board-initiated GNSO > > policy development process'). As pointed out by Avri, for PDPs initiated > > by the ICANN Board, there is no intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, > the > > PDP automatically proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the > > case of a Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by > > which the GNSO > > Council can consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, > > timing, and priority of the request for an Issue Report'. In addition to > > this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO Council meet at every ICANN > > meeting where there is another opportunity to discuss and/or express > > concerns with regard to Board requested PDPs. For example, in relation to > > the RAA PDP, as a result of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO > > Council it was agreed to 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations > were > > near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be > > included in the PDP. > > > > With best regards, > > > > Marika > > > > On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" wrote: > > > >> > >> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. > >> > >> > >> Best regards > >> Wolf-Ulrich > >> > >> > >> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > >> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri > Doria > >> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 > >> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > >> > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they have > >> not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. The > >> g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. These > are > >> still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for the PDP, there > >> never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. > >> Specifically: > >> > >> " > >> March 212 20120314-1 > >> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on > 'thick' > >> Whois > >> > >> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois at > >> its meeting on 22 September 2011 > >> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); > >> > >> .... > >> " > >> > >> " > >> November 2012 20121017-2 > >> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the > >> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. > >> > >> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of > >> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of > >> international organizations at the first and second levels in the New > >> gTLD Program. > >> > >> .... > >> " > >> > >> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS > >> > >> " > >> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report > >> > >> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing the > >> GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. > In > -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l?employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu?il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From KnobenW at telekom.de Tue Dec 11 17:27:22 2012 From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 18:27:22 +0100 Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DD05E8A@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DCEDC4D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <84FC335A-0674-44AB-BFA7-3FC873FA96E4@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DD05E8A@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, just bring it to the point. First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should be agreed. Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the concern? Or do others have? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't think we are unanimous. 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still concerned. avri On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, wrote: > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" wrote: > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position where it >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not >> answered our questions." This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >> 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 at 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 at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >> Konings >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri >>> Doria >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >>> Specifically: >>> >>> " >>> March 212 20120314-1 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >>> Whois >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> " >>> November 2012 20121017-2 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the >>> New gTLD Program. >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >>> >>> " >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >>> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >>> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >>> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >>> No vote is required for such action. >>> " >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>>> Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one >>>> their preemptory decisions. >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >>>> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anne and all, >>>>> >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation >>>> that the council should follow a related board request. I think >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debate following the >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. >>>>> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>>> Julie? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>>> says, >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an >>>> answer >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >>>>> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and >>>>> the >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>>> "oasis" >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >>>>> at >>>> the >>>> GNSO level. >>>>> >>>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named >>>>> within >>>> the message. >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply >>>>> e-mail and delete the >>>> original message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>>> comment >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>>> >>>>> jse >>>>> >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>>> Inc. >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" ; >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>>> deleted? >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> From: , Anne >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>> , >>>> Julie Hedlund >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>>> If >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would >>>> not apply. >>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed >>>> Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>> clarification to >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold >>>> all >>>> caps: >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change >>>> in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that >>>>> the >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>>> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is >>>>> accepted >>>> by the >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>>> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >>>>> the >>>> SCI >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of >>>> Wednesday, >>>> 12 >>>> December.** >>>>> >>>>> With best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of >>>> termination orsuspension. >>>> The >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>>> support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>>> initiation >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; >>>> or warranting a suspension; or >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack >>>> of volunteer participation. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>>>> termination, >>>> the >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>>>> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > PDP.docx> From alain.berranger at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 20:41:57 2012 From: alain.berranger at gmail.com (Alain Berranger) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 15:41:57 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DCEDC4D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <84FC335A-0674-44AB-BFA7-3FC873FA96E4@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DD05E8A@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, and priority... Alain On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, wrote: > > We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, > just bring it to the point. > > First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should > be agreed. > > Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the > concern? Or do others have? > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 > An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > > Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't think > we are unanimous. > 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > > Hi, > > Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still > concerned. > > avri > > On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, wrote: > > > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote > (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council > meeting. > > > > > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; > > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the > Vertical Integration PDP: > > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). > > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > > > With best regards, > > > > Marika > > > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" wrote: > > > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls > >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in > >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the > >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, > >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there > >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the > >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is > >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an > >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on > >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a > >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a > >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status > >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed > >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or > >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position where it > >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not > >> answered our questions." This is particularly unsatisfactory where the > GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. > >> 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 at 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 at icann.org > >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika > >> Konings > >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM > >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > >> > >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the > >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation > >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process > >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a > >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois > >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of > >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions > >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of > >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out > >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no > >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically > >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a > >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which > >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information > >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue > >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO > >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another > >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board > >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result > >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to > >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so > that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. > >> > >> With best regards, > >> > >> Marika > >> > >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. > >>> > >>> > >>> Best regards > >>> Wolf-Ulrich > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri > >>> Doria > >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 > >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > >>> > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they > >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. > >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. > >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for > >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate > the PDP. > >>> Specifically: > >>> > >>> " > >>> March 212 20120314-1 > >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on > 'thick' > >>> Whois > >>> > >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois > >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 > >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); > >>> > >>> .... > >>> " > >>> > >>> " > >>> November 2012 20121017-2 > >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the > >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. > >>> > >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of > >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of > >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the > >>> New gTLD Program. > >>> > >>> .... > >>> " > >>> > >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS > >>> > >>> " > >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report > >>> > >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing > >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP > Manual. > >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the > >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can > >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, > >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. > >>> > >>> .... > >>> > >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP > >>> > >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: > >>> > >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, > >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. > >>> No vote is required for such action. > >>> " > >>> > >>> avri > >>> > >>> > >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > >>> > >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP > >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne > >>>> > >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] > >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm > >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] > >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit > >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into > >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's > >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN > >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic > >>>> principles. > >>>> > >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. > >>>> > >>>> Kind regards, > >>>> > >>>> RA > >>>> > >>>> Ronald N. Andruff > >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri > >>>> Doria > >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM > >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever > >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect > >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one > >>>> their preemptory decisions. > >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - > >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this > >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the > >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even > >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. > >>>> > >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. > >>>> > >>>> avri > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Anne and all, > >>>>> > >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council > >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation > >>>> that the council should follow a related board request. I think > >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debate following the > >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. > >>>>> > >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by > >>>> Julie? > >>>>> > >>>>> Best regards > >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von > >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne > >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 > >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; > >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > >>>>> > >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board > >>>> says, > >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an > >>>> answer > >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? > >>>>> > >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and > >>>>> the > >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's > >>>> "oasis" > >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure > >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. > >>>>> > >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up > >>>>> at > >>>> the > >>>> GNSO level. > >>>>> > >>>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . > >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. > >>>>> > >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential > >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named > >>>>> within > >>>> the message. > >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or > >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you > >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution > >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this > >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply > >>>>> e-mail and delete the > >>>> original message. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] > >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM > >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; > >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > >>>>> > >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public > >>>> comment > >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. > >>>>> > >>>>> jse > >>>>> > >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! > >>>> Inc. > >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund > >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" ; > >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM > >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be > >>>> deleted? > >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. > >>>>> > >>>>> Best regards, > >>>>> Julie > >>>>> > >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a > >>>> temporary > >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a > >>>> decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or > >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." > >>>>> > >>>>> From: , Anne > >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM > >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > >>>> , > >>>> Julie Hedlund > >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > >>>>> > >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? > >>>> If > >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would > >>>> not apply. > >>>> Anne > >>>>> > >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > >>>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] > >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm > >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] > >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >>>> PDP--Proposed > >>>> Revised Footnote > >>>>> > >>>>> Dear SCI members, > >>>>> > >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a > >>>> clarification to > >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. > >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold > >>>> all > >>>> caps: > >>>>> > >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a > >>>> temporary > >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a > >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change > >>>> in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." > >>>>> > >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that > >>>>> the > >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. > >>>>> > >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is > >>>>> accepted > >>>> by the > >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. > >>>>> > >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if > >>>>> the > >>>> SCI > >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of > >>>> Wednesday, > >>>> 12 > >>>> December.** > >>>>> > >>>>> With best regards, > >>>>> > >>>>> Julie > >>>>> > >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > >>>>> > >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report > >>>>> > >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the > >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a > >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of > >>>> termination orsuspension. > >>>> The > >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a > >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to > >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong > >>>> support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and > >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; > >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the > >>>> initiation > >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; > >>>> or warranting a suspension; or > >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for > >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired > >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack > >>>> of volunteer participation. > >>>>> > >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its > >>>>> termination, > >>>> the > >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior > >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described > above). > >>>>> > >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a > >>>> temporary > >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a > >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in > >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. > >>>>> > >>>>> 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. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > PDP.docx> of a PDP.docx> > > > > > -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l?employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu?il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Tue Dec 11 21:23:55 2012 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:23:55 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alain, One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change from the original footnote text. The previous suggestion ? adding the word "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public Comment Forum on new language. As discussed during last Thursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented in the public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that the revised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days. Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longer period, perhaps 30 days. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Alain Berranger > Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, and priority... Alain On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, > wrote: We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, just bring it to the point. First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should be agreed. Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the concern? Or do others have? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't think we are unanimous. 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still concerned. avri On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, > > wrote: > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > wrote: > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position where it >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not >> answered our questions." This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >> 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 at 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 at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >> Konings >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri >>> Doria >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >>> Specifically: >>> >>> " >>> March 212 20120314-1 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >>> Whois >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> " >>> November 2012 20121017-2 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the >>> New gTLD Program. >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >>> >>> " >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >>> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >>> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >>> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >>> No vote is required for such action. >>> " >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>>> Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one >>>> their preemptory decisions. >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >>>> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, > > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anne and all, >>>>> >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation >>>> that the council should follow a related board request. I think >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debate following the >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. >>>>> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>>> Julie? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>>> says, >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an >>>> answer >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >>>>> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and >>>>> the >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>>> "oasis" >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >>>>> at >>>> the >>>> GNSO level. >>>>> >>>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named >>>>> within >>>> the message. >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply >>>>> e-mail and delete the >>>> original message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>>> comment >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>>> >>>>> jse >>>>> >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>>> Inc. >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund > >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >; >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>>> deleted? >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> From: , Anne > >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>> >, >>>> Julie Hedlund > >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>>> If >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would >>>> not apply. >>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed >>>> Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>> clarification to >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold >>>> all >>>> caps: >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change >>>> in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that >>>>> the >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>>> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is >>>>> accepted >>>> by the >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>>> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >>>>> the >>>> SCI >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of >>>> Wednesday, >>>> 12 >>>> December.** >>>>> >>>>> With best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of >>>> termination orsuspension. >>>> The >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>>> support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>>> initiation >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; >>>> or warranting a suspension; or >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack >>>> of volunteer participation. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>>>> termination, >>>> the >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>>>> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > PDP.docx> -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l?employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu?il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From KnobenW at telekom.de Wed Dec 12 12:05:47 2012 From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:05:47 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Message-ID: All, per its charter, the SCI is expected to take decisions using a 'full consensus' process ("when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings"). Obviously it would be ideal if all members support a certain position. It would also be ideal if we find consensus today which is the deadline for motions before the next counciil meeting. But in order to reduce time pressure I could imagine the option to submit the draft motion today, noting that there are some issues that are still being discussed by the SCI which may result in withdrawal of the motion and agenda item if no agreement can be found. If there is no objection I'll do so accordingly at the end of the day. Thanks for this valuable discussion and for your understanding. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Julie Hedlund > To: Alain Berranger >, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Alain, One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change from the original footnote text. The previous suggestion - adding the word "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public Comment Forum on new language. As discussed during last Thursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented in the public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that the revised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days. Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longer period, perhaps 30 days. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Alain Berranger > Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, and priority... Alain On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, > wrote: We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, just bring it to the point. First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should be agreed. Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the concern? Or do others have? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't think we are unanimous. 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still concerned. avri On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, > > wrote: > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > wrote: > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position where it >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not >> answered our questions." This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >> 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) 879-4725AAikman at 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 at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >> Konings >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri >>> Doria >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >>> Specifically: >>> >>> " >>> March 212 20120314-1 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >>> Whois >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> " >>> November 2012 20121017-2 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the >>> New gTLD Program. >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >>> >>> " >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >>> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >>> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >>> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >>> No vote is required for such action. >>> " >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>>> Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one >>>> their preemptory decisions. >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >>>> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, > > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anne and all, >>>>> >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation >>>> that the council should follow a related board request. I think >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debate following the >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. >>>>> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>>> Julie? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>>> says, >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an >>>> answer >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >>>>> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and >>>>> the >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>>> "oasis" >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >>>>> at >>>> the >>>> GNSO level. >>>>> >>>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named >>>>> within >>>> the message. >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply >>>>> e-mail and delete the >>>> original message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>>> comment >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>>> >>>>> jse >>>>> >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>>> Inc. >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund > >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >; >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>>> deleted? >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> From: , Anne > >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>> >, >>>> Julie Hedlund > >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>>> If >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would >>>> not apply. >>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed >>>> Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>> clarification to >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold >>>> all >>>> caps: >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change >>>> in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that >>>>> the >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>>> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is >>>>> accepted >>>> by the >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>>> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >>>>> the >>>> SCI >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of >>>> Wednesday, >>>> 12 >>>> December.** >>>>> >>>>> With best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of >>>> termination orsuspension. >>>> The >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>>> support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>>> initiation >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; >>>> or warranting a suspension; or >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack >>>> of volunteer participation. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>>>> termination, >>>> the >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>>>> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > PDP.docx> -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l'usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l'employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu'il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Wed Dec 12 17:42:23 2012 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:42:23 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <7F380507AE7C4709825A589CEE792106@ron> I support this way forward, Chair. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. _____ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW at telekom.de Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 7:06 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, per its charter, the SCI is expected to take decisions using a 'full consensus' process ("when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings"). Obviously it would be ideal if all members support a certain position. It would also be ideal if we find consensus today which is the deadline for motions before the next counciil meeting. But in order to reduce time pressure I could imagine the option to submit the draft motion today, noting that there are some issues that are still being discussed by the SCI which may result in withdrawal of the motion and agenda item if no agreement can be found. If there is no objection I'll do so accordingly at the end of the day. Thanks for this valuable discussion and for your understanding. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Julie Hedlund To: Alain Berranger , "KnobenW at telekom.de" Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" , "avri at acm.org" , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Alain, One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change from the original footnote text. The previous suggestion ? adding the word "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public Comment Forum on new language. As discussed during last Thursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented in the public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that the revised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days. Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longer period, perhaps 30 days. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Alain Berranger Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" , "avri at acm.org" , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, and priority... Alain On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, wrote: We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, just bring it to the point. First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should be agreed. Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the concern? Or do others have? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't think we are unanimous. 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still concerned. avri On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, wrote: > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" wrote: > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position where it >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not >> answered our questions." This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >> 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) 879-4725AAikman at 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 at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >> Konings >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri >>> Doria >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >>> Specifically: >>> >>> " >>> March 212 20120314-1 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >>> Whois >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> " >>> November 2012 20121017-2 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the >>> New gTLD Program. >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >>> >>> " >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >>> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >>> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >>> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >>> No vote is required for such action. >>> " >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>>> Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one >>>> their preemptory decisions. >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >>>> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anne and all, >>>>> >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation >>>> that the council should follow a related board request. I think >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debate following the >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. >>>>> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>>> Julie? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>>> says, >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an >>>> answer >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >>>>> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and >>>>> the >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>>> "oasis" >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >>>>> at >>>> the >>>> GNSO level. >>>>> >>>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named >>>>> within >>>> the message. >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply >>>>> e-mail and delete the >>>> original message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>>> comment >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>>> >>>>> jse >>>>> >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>>> Inc. >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" ; >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>>> deleted? >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> From: , Anne >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>> , >>>> Julie Hedlund >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>>> If >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would >>>> not apply. >>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed >>>> Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>> clarification to >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold >>>> all >>>> caps: >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change >>>> in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that >>>>> the >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>>> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is >>>>> accepted >>>> by the >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>>> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >>>>> the >>>> SCI >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of >>>> Wednesday, >>>> 12 >>>> December.** >>>>> >>>>> With best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of >>>> termination orsuspension. >>>> The >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>>> support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>>> initiation >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; >>>> or warranting a suspension; or >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack >>>> of volunteer participation. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>>>> termination, >>>> the >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>>>> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > PDP.docx> -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l?employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu?il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Wed Dec 12 17:45:09 2012 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 17:45:09 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DD0948F@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Thank you, Wolf. I am still trying to come up with language that addresses this concern but that does not create a need for a new public comment period. It almost sounds as though Marika was saying that it is implicit that this decision is subject to Board review and communication. If that is the case, I would propose we substitute "subject to Board review" in place of "until further notice" in the footnote. It does seem to me, however, that the whole issue of organizational effectiveness is an appropriate topic for SCI. I noted that in the GNSO agenda that was published, an issue was raised as to how to respond to a GAC letter asking why the GNSO had initiated a PDP with respect to a topic that the GAC viewed as simple to implement. It seems to me that if suspension occurs, the GNSO should be required to provide a full report of positions and/or reasons for suspension to the Board in the case where the Board has asked for Answers or for an Issue Report that resulted in a GNSO PDP or initiated the PDP itself pursuant to the ByLaws. The example Marika gave was Vertical Integration. The discipline of preparing such a report is that the issues and positions are clarifed for the Board and that allows for them to move forward with a decision or else to decide to wait until the suspension lifts. My own view is that suspension should not occur until such a report is finalized. If factions within the PDP can't agree on the content of such a final report, then more than one report could issue. I think SCI has an opportunity here to help encourage effective organizational behavior among the Board, the GAC, and the GNSO so that deadlocks do not occur. I know there is history with respect to the termination of a WhoIs PDP back in 2007. I also know there is pressure on ICANN to work effectively from outside organizations that may want control of the Internet. It seems to me that SCI should not be saying "What the Board does when the GNSO suspends is none of our business." Our business is to evaluate and recommend Improvements to the process when asked to do so. Anne [cid:917291623 at 11122012-0717]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 at LRLaw.com * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 2:24 PM To: Alain Berranger; KnobenW at telekom.de Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Alain, One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change from the original footnote text. The previous suggestion - adding the word "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public Comment Forum on new language. As discussed during last Thursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented in the public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that the revised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days. Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longer period, perhaps 30 days. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Alain Berranger > Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, and priority... Alain On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, > wrote: We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, just bring it to the point. First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should be agreed. Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the concern? Or do others have? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't think we are unanimous. 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still concerned. avri On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, > > wrote: > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > wrote: > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position where it >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not >> answered our questions." This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >> 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 at 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 at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >> Konings >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri >>> Doria >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >>> Specifically: >>> >>> " >>> March 212 20120314-1 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >>> Whois >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> " >>> November 2012 20121017-2 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the >>> New gTLD Program. >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >>> >>> " >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >>> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >>> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >>> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >>> No vote is required for such action. >>> " >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>>> Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one >>>> their preemptory decisions. >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >>>> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, > > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anne and all, >>>>> >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation >>>> that the council should follow a related board request. I think >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debate following the >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. >>>>> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>>> Julie? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>>> says, >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an >>>> answer >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >>>>> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and >>>>> the >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>>> "oasis" >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >>>>> at >>>> the >>>> GNSO level. >>>>> >>>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named >>>>> within >>>> the message. >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply >>>>> e-mail and delete the >>>> original message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>>> comment >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>>> >>>>> jse >>>>> >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>>> Inc. >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund > >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >; >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>>> deleted? >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> From: , Anne > >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>> >, >>>> Julie Hedlund > >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>>> If >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would >>>> not apply. >>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed >>>> Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>> clarification to >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold >>>> all >>>> caps: >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change >>>> in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that >>>>> the >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>>> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is >>>>> accepted >>>> by the >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>>> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >>>>> the >>>> SCI >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of >>>> Wednesday, >>>> 12 >>>> December.** >>>>> >>>>> With best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of >>>> termination orsuspension. >>>> The >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>>> support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>>> initiation >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; >>>> or warranting a suspension; or >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack >>>> of volunteer participation. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>>>> termination, >>>> the >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>>>> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > PDP.docx> -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l'usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l'employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu'il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From marika.konings at icann.org Wed Dec 12 18:30:37 2012 From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:30:37 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DD0948F@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Anne, reading your comments it seems that your concerns go beyond what may happen in case of the suspension of a PDP and seems to deal more with what procedures should be followed / in place to communicate with other entities such the Board and the GAC on topics of common interest that may be the subject of a PDP (whether initiated by the Board or not). As the SCI will be tasked with reviewing the overall PDP in due time, maybe an alternative approach would be to start collecting topics, like this one, that would feed into the overall review of the GNSO PDP when the SCI decides to kick that off? For example, the SCI could create a wiki page for this purpose where members of the SCI, but also other community members could raise issues that they feel would need to be considered as part of this overall review. Also, by pushing this issue a bit further down the tracks, it is also likely that the SCI will have some concrete data points by reviewing how this has been handled by the GNSO Council as there are now two PDPs underway that have been requested by the Board, in order to determine whether additional procedures or guidance is required. This issue may benefit from a more holistic approach instead of trying to shoehorn it into the issue of suspension of a PDP (which has been clarified to mean for a defined time period following which it would continue again). Just a suggestion. Best regards, Marika From: , Anne > Date: Wednesday 12 December 2012 18:45 To: Julie Hedlund >, Alain Berranger >, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > Cc: Avri Doria >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Thank you, Wolf. I am still trying to come up with language that addresses this concern but that does not create a need for a new public comment period. It almost sounds as though Marika was saying that it is implicit that this decision is subject to Board review and communication. If that is the case, I would propose we substitute "subject to Board review" in place of "until further notice" in the footnote. It does seem to me, however, that the whole issue of organizational effectiveness is an appropriate topic for SCI. I noted that in the GNSO agenda that was published, an issue was raised as to how to respond to a GAC letter asking why the GNSO had initiated a PDP with respect to a topic that the GAC viewed as simple to implement. It seems to me that if suspension occurs, the GNSO should be required to provide a full report of positions and/or reasons for suspension to the Board in the case where the Board has asked for Answers or for an Issue Report that resulted in a GNSO PDP or initiated the PDP itself pursuant to the ByLaws. The example Marika gave was Vertical Integration. The discipline of preparing such a report is that the issues and positions are clarifed for the Board and that allows for them to move forward with a decision or else to decide to wait until the suspension lifts. My own view is that suspension should not occur until such a report is finalized. If factions within the PDP can't agree on the content of such a final report, then more than one report could issue. I think SCI has an opportunity here to help encourage effective organizational behavior among the Board, the GAC, and the GNSO so that deadlocks do not occur. I know there is history with respect to the termination of a WhoIs PDP back in 2007. I also know there is pressure on ICANN to work effectively from outside organizations that may want control of the Internet. It seems to me that SCI should not be saying "What the Board does when the GNSO suspends is none of our business." Our business is to evaluate and recommend Improvements to the process when asked to do so. Anne [cid:917291623 at 11122012-0717]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 at 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: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 2:24 PM To: Alain Berranger; KnobenW at telekom.de Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Alain, One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change from the original footnote text. The previous suggestion ? adding the word "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public Comment Forum on new language. As discussed during last Thursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented in the public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that the revised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days. Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longer period, perhaps 30 days. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Alain Berranger > Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, and priority... Alain On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, > wrote: We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, just bring it to the point. First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should be agreed. Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the concern? Or do others have? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't think we are unanimous. 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still concerned. avri On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, > > wrote: > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > wrote: > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position where it >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not >> answered our questions." This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >> 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) 879-4725AAikman at 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 at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >> Konings >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri >>> Doria >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >>> Specifically: >>> >>> " >>> March 212 20120314-1 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >>> Whois >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> " >>> November 2012 20121017-2 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the >>> New gTLD Program. >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >>> >>> " >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >>> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >>> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >>> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >>> No vote is required for such action. >>> " >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>>> Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one >>>> their preemptory decisions. >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >>>> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, > > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anne and all, >>>>> >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation >>>> that the council should follow a related board request. I think >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debate following the >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. >>>>> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>>> Julie? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>>> says, >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an >>>> answer >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >>>>> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and >>>>> the >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>>> "oasis" >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >>>>> at >>>> the >>>> GNSO level. >>>>> >>>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named >>>>> within >>>> the message. >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply >>>>> e-mail and delete the >>>> original message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>>> comment >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>>> >>>>> jse >>>>> >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>>> Inc. >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund > >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >; >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>>> deleted? >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> From: , Anne > >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>> >, >>>> Julie Hedlund > >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>>> If >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would >>>> not apply. >>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed >>>> Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>> clarification to >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold >>>> all >>>> caps: >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change >>>> in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that >>>>> the >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>>> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is >>>>> accepted >>>> by the >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>>> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >>>>> the >>>> SCI >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of >>>> Wednesday, >>>> 12 >>>> December.** >>>>> >>>>> With best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of >>>> termination orsuspension. >>>> The >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>>> support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>>> initiation >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; >>>> or warranting a suspension; or >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack >>>> of volunteer participation. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>>>> termination, >>>> the >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>>>> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > PDP.docx> -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l?employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu?il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Wed Dec 12 18:47:34 2012 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:47:34 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DD0948F@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DD0B410@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Marika, This sounds quite complicated to me and could perhaps serve as the topic of its own PDP on organizational behavior. All I was really suggesting is that if a PDP is suspended and it involves a topic where the Board needs answers or initiated it somehow, there should be a written report (or reports) to the Board on the status of the analysis at suspension. Thank you, Anne [cid:077554418 at 12122012-1FFE]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 at LRLaw.com * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:31 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Julie Hedlund; Alain Berranger; KnobenW at telekom.de Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Anne, reading your comments it seems that your concerns go beyond what may happen in case of the suspension of a PDP and seems to deal more with what procedures should be followed / in place to communicate with other entities such the Board and the GAC on topics of common interest that may be the subject of a PDP (whether initiated by the Board or not). As the SCI will be tasked with reviewing the overall PDP in due time, maybe an alternative approach would be to start collecting topics, like this one, that would feed into the overall review of the GNSO PDP when the SCI decides to kick that off? For example, the SCI could create a wiki page for this purpose where members of the SCI, but also other community members could raise issues that they feel would need to be considered as part of this overall review. Also, by pushing this issue a bit further down the tracks, it is also likely that the SCI will have some concrete data points by reviewing how this has been handled by the GNSO Council as there are now two PDPs underway that have been requested by the Board, in order to determine whether additional procedures or guidance is required. This issue may benefit from a more holistic approach instead of trying to shoehorn it into the issue of suspension of a PDP (which has been clarified to mean for a defined time period following which it would continue again). Just a suggestion. Best regards, Marika From: , Anne > Date: Wednesday 12 December 2012 18:45 To: Julie Hedlund >, Alain Berranger >, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > Cc: Avri Doria >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Thank you, Wolf. I am still trying to come up with language that addresses this concern but that does not create a need for a new public comment period. It almost sounds as though Marika was saying that it is implicit that this decision is subject to Board review and communication. If that is the case, I would propose we substitute "subject to Board review" in place of "until further notice" in the footnote. It does seem to me, however, that the whole issue of organizational effectiveness is an appropriate topic for SCI. I noted that in the GNSO agenda that was published, an issue was raised as to how to respond to a GAC letter asking why the GNSO had initiated a PDP with respect to a topic that the GAC viewed as simple to implement. It seems to me that if suspension occurs, the GNSO should be required to provide a full report of positions and/or reasons for suspension to the Board in the case where the Board has asked for Answers or for an Issue Report that resulted in a GNSO PDP or initiated the PDP itself pursuant to the ByLaws. The example Marika gave was Vertical Integration. The discipline of preparing such a report is that the issues and positions are clarifed for the Board and that allows for them to move forward with a decision or else to decide to wait until the suspension lifts. My own view is that suspension should not occur until such a report is finalized. If factions within the PDP can't agree on the content of such a final report, then more than one report could issue. I think SCI has an opportunity here to help encourage effective organizational behavior among the Board, the GAC, and the GNSO so that deadlocks do not occur. I know there is history with respect to the termination of a WhoIs PDP back in 2007. I also know there is pressure on ICANN to work effectively from outside organizations that may want control of the Internet. It seems to me that SCI should not be saying "What the Board does when the GNSO suspends is none of our business." Our business is to evaluate and recommend Improvements to the process when asked to do so. Anne [cid:077554418 at 12122012-2005]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 at 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: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 2:24 PM To: Alain Berranger; KnobenW at telekom.de Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Alain, One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change from the original footnote text. The previous suggestion - adding the word "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public Comment Forum on new language. As discussed during last Thursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented in the public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that the revised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days. Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longer period, perhaps 30 days. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Alain Berranger > Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, and priority... Alain On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, > wrote: We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, just bring it to the point. First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should be agreed. Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the concern? Or do others have? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't think we are unanimous. 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still concerned. avri On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, > > wrote: > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > wrote: > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position where it >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not >> answered our questions." This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >> 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) 879-4725AAikman at 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 at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >> Konings >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri >>> Doria >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >>> Specifically: >>> >>> " >>> March 212 20120314-1 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >>> Whois >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> " >>> November 2012 20121017-2 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the >>> New gTLD Program. >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >>> >>> " >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >>> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >>> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >>> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >>> No vote is required for such action. >>> " >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>>> Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one >>>> their preemptory decisions. >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >>>> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, > > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anne and all, >>>>> >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation >>>> that the council should follow a related board request. I think >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debate following the >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. >>>>> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>>> Julie? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>>> says, >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an >>>> answer >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >>>>> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and >>>>> the >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>>> "oasis" >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >>>>> at >>>> the >>>> GNSO level. >>>>> >>>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named >>>>> within >>>> the message. >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply >>>>> e-mail and delete the >>>> original message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>>> comment >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>>> >>>>> jse >>>>> >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>>> Inc. >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund > >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >; >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>>> deleted? >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> From: , Anne > >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>> >, >>>> Julie Hedlund > >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>>> If >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would >>>> not apply. >>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed >>>> Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>> clarification to >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold >>>> all >>>> caps: >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change >>>> in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that >>>>> the >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>>> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is >>>>> accepted >>>> by the >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>>> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >>>>> the >>>> SCI >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of >>>> Wednesday, >>>> 12 >>>> December.** >>>>> >>>>> With best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of >>>> termination orsuspension. >>>> The >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>>> support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>>> initiation >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; >>>> or warranting a suspension; or >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack >>>> of volunteer participation. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>>>> termination, >>>> the >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>>>> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > PDP.docx> -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l'usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l'employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu'il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Wed Dec 12 19:04:19 2012 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:04:19 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DD0B410@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Anne and others have brought some interesting and relevant issues to the table, particularly about the Board initiating PDPs. It makes me wonder if there is a more efficient or effective way for the Board to interact with the Council on such matters. It seems to me that if Board mandating PDPs were to become standard practice, that would be completely at odds with the bottom up process ICANN is founded upon. More grist for the mill Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. _____ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 1:48 PM To: 'Marika Konings'; Julie Hedlund; Alain Berranger; KnobenW at telekom.de Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Marika, This sounds quite complicated to me and could perhaps serve as the topic of its own PDP on organizational behavior. All I was really suggesting is that if a PDP is suspended and it involves a topic where the Board needs answers or initiated it somehow, there should be a written report (or reports) to the Board on the status of the analysis at suspension. 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 at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. _____ From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:31 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Julie Hedlund; Alain Berranger; KnobenW at telekom.de Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Anne, reading your comments it seems that your concerns go beyond what may happen in case of the suspension of a PDP and seems to deal more with what procedures should be followed / in place to communicate with other entities such the Board and the GAC on topics of common interest that may be the subject of a PDP (whether initiated by the Board or not). As the SCI will be tasked with reviewing the overall PDP in due time, maybe an alternative approach would be to start collecting topics, like this one, that would feed into the overall review of the GNSO PDP when the SCI decides to kick that off? For example, the SCI could create a wiki page for this purpose where members of the SCI, but also other community members could raise issues that they feel would need to be considered as part of this overall review. Also, by pushing this issue a bit further down the tracks, it is also likely that the SCI will have some concrete data points by reviewing how this has been handled by the GNSO Council as there are now two PDPs underway that have been requested by the Board, in order to determine whether additional procedures or guidance is required. This issue may benefit from a more holistic approach instead of trying to shoehorn it into the issue of suspension of a PDP (which has been clarified to mean for a defined time period following which it would continue again). Just a suggestion. Best regards, Marika From: , Anne Date: Wednesday 12 December 2012 18:45 To: Julie Hedlund , Alain Berranger , "KnobenW at telekom.de" Cc: Avri Doria , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Thank you, Wolf. I am still trying to come up with language that addresses this concern but that does not create a need for a new public comment period. It almost sounds as though Marika was saying that it is implicit that this decision is subject to Board review and communication. If that is the case, I would propose we substitute "subject to Board review" in place of "until further notice" in the footnote. It does seem to me, however, that the whole issue of organizational effectiveness is an appropriate topic for SCI. I noted that in the GNSO agenda that was published, an issue was raised as to how to respond to a GAC letter asking why the GNSO had initiated a PDP with respect to a topic that the GAC viewed as simple to implement. It seems to me that if suspension occurs, the GNSO should be required to provide a full report of positions and/or reasons for suspension to the Board in the case where the Board has asked for Answers or for an Issue Report that resulted in a GNSO PDP or initiated the PDP itself pursuant to the ByLaws. The example Marika gave was Vertical Integration. The discipline of preparing such a report is that the issues and positions are clarifed for the Board and that allows for them to move forward with a decision or else to decide to wait until the suspension lifts. My own view is that suspension should not occur until such a report is finalized. If factions within the PDP can't agree on the content of such a final report, then more than one report could issue. I think SCI has an opportunity here to help encourage effective organizational behavior among the Board, the GAC, and the GNSO so that deadlocks do not occur. I know there is history with respect to the termination of a WhoIs PDP back in 2007. I also know there is pressure on ICANN to work effectively from outside organizations that may want control of the Internet. It seems to me that SCI should not be saying "What the Board does when the GNSO suspends is none of our business." Our business is to evaluate and recommend Improvements to the process when asked to do so. 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 at 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: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 2:24 PM To: Alain Berranger; KnobenW at telekom.de Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Alain, One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change from the original footnote text. The previous suggestion ? adding the word "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public Comment Forum on new language. As discussed during last Thursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented in the public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that the revised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days. Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longer period, perhaps 30 days. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Alain Berranger Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" , "avri at acm.org" , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, and priority... Alain On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, wrote: We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, just bring it to the point. First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should be agreed. Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the concern? Or do others have? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't think we are unanimous. 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still concerned. avri On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, wrote: > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" wrote: > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position where it >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not >> answered our questions." This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >> 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) 879-4725AAikman at 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 at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >> Konings >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri >>> Doria >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >>> Specifically: >>> >>> " >>> March 212 20120314-1 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >>> Whois >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> " >>> November 2012 20121017-2 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the >>> New gTLD Program. >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >>> >>> " >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >>> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >>> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >>> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >>> No vote is required for such action. >>> " >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>>> Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one >>>> their preemptory decisions. >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >>>> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anne and all, >>>>> >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation >>>> that the council should follow a related board request. I think >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debate following the >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. >>>>> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>>> Julie? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>>> says, >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an >>>> answer >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >>>>> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and >>>>> the >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>>> "oasis" >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >>>>> at >>>> the >>>> GNSO level. >>>>> >>>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named >>>>> within >>>> the message. >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply >>>>> e-mail and delete the >>>> original message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>>> comment >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>>> >>>>> jse >>>>> >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>>> Inc. >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" ; >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>>> deleted? >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> From: , Anne >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>> , >>>> Julie Hedlund >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>>> If >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would >>>> not apply. >>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed >>>> Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>> clarification to >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold >>>> all >>>> caps: >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change >>>> in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that >>>>> the >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>>> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is >>>>> accepted >>>> by the >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>>> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >>>>> the >>>> SCI >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of >>>> Wednesday, >>>> 12 >>>> December.** >>>>> >>>>> With best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of >>>> termination orsuspension. >>>> The >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>>> support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>>> initiation >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; >>>> or warranting a suspension; or >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack >>>> of volunteer participation. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>>>> termination, >>>> the >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>>>> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > PDP.docx> -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l?employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu?il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: not available URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Wed Dec 12 19:50:18 2012 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 11:50:18 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DD0B410@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Hi Anne, Perhaps we could go back to an earlier suggestion of yours and amend the footnote accordingly. That is, you suggested we could substitute "subject to Board review" in place of "until further notice." However, not all PDP suspensions may warrant a Board review because they may not be PDPs that resulted from a Board request. So perhaps we could say, "subject to review by the ICANN Board in those cases where they Board has requested a PDP" or something like that. It seems that change could address the issue that the Board should have the opportunity to review a suspension on a PDP it has requested and could ask for a specific report from the Council accordingly. Perhaps we don't need to specify that the GNSO Council must provide a report, or the terms of a report, but could leave it up to the Board as to what they would wish to request. I'm not sure the change is minor enough to avoid a public comment process, but that is for the SCI and the Council to decide. Just a suggestion. With best regards, Julie From: , Anne > Date: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 1:47 PM To: Marika Konings >, Julie Hedlund >, Alain Berranger >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Marika, This sounds quite complicated to me and could perhaps serve as the topic of its own PDP on organizational behavior. All I was really suggesting is that if a PDP is suspended and it involves a topic where the Board needs answers or initiated it somehow, there should be a written report (or reports) to the Board on the status of the analysis at suspension. Thank you, Anne [cid:077554418 at 12122012-1FFE]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 at 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: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:31 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Julie Hedlund; Alain Berranger; KnobenW at telekom.de Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Anne, reading your comments it seems that your concerns go beyond what may happen in case of the suspension of a PDP and seems to deal more with what procedures should be followed / in place to communicate with other entities such the Board and the GAC on topics of common interest that may be the subject of a PDP (whether initiated by the Board or not). As the SCI will be tasked with reviewing the overall PDP in due time, maybe an alternative approach would be to start collecting topics, like this one, that would feed into the overall review of the GNSO PDP when the SCI decides to kick that off? For example, the SCI could create a wiki page for this purpose where members of the SCI, but also other community members could raise issues that they feel would need to be considered as part of this overall review. Also, by pushing this issue a bit further down the tracks, it is also likely that the SCI will have some concrete data points by reviewing how this has been handled by the GNSO Council as there are now two PDPs underway that have been requested by the Board, in order to determine whether additional procedures or guidance is required. This issue may benefit from a more holistic approach instead of trying to shoehorn it into the issue of suspension of a PDP (which has been clarified to mean for a defined time period following which it would continue again). Just a suggestion. Best regards, Marika From: , Anne > Date: Wednesday 12 December 2012 18:45 To: Julie Hedlund >, Alain Berranger >, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > Cc: Avri Doria >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Thank you, Wolf. I am still trying to come up with language that addresses this concern but that does not create a need for a new public comment period. It almost sounds as though Marika was saying that it is implicit that this decision is subject to Board review and communication. If that is the case, I would propose we substitute "subject to Board review" in place of "until further notice" in the footnote. It does seem to me, however, that the whole issue of organizational effectiveness is an appropriate topic for SCI. I noted that in the GNSO agenda that was published, an issue was raised as to how to respond to a GAC letter asking why the GNSO had initiated a PDP with respect to a topic that the GAC viewed as simple to implement. It seems to me that if suspension occurs, the GNSO should be required to provide a full report of positions and/or reasons for suspension to the Board in the case where the Board has asked for Answers or for an Issue Report that resulted in a GNSO PDP or initiated the PDP itself pursuant to the ByLaws. The example Marika gave was Vertical Integration. The discipline of preparing such a report is that the issues and positions are clarifed for the Board and that allows for them to move forward with a decision or else to decide to wait until the suspension lifts. My own view is that suspension should not occur until such a report is finalized. If factions within the PDP can't agree on the content of such a final report, then more than one report could issue. I think SCI has an opportunity here to help encourage effective organizational behavior among the Board, the GAC, and the GNSO so that deadlocks do not occur. I know there is history with respect to the termination of a WhoIs PDP back in 2007. I also know there is pressure on ICANN to work effectively from outside organizations that may want control of the Internet. It seems to me that SCI should not be saying "What the Board does when the GNSO suspends is none of our business." Our business is to evaluate and recommend Improvements to the process when asked to do so. Anne [cid:077554418 at 12122012-2005]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 at 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: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 2:24 PM To: Alain Berranger; KnobenW at telekom.de Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Alain, One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change from the original footnote text. The previous suggestion ? adding the word "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public Comment Forum on new language. As discussed during last Thursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented in the public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that the revised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days. Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longer period, perhaps 30 days. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Alain Berranger > Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, and priority... Alain On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, > wrote: We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, just bring it to the point. First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should be agreed. Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the concern? Or do others have? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't think we are unanimous. 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still concerned. avri On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, > > wrote: > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > wrote: > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position where it >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not >> answered our questions." This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >> 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) 879-4725AAikman at 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 at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >> Konings >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri >>> Doria >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >>> Specifically: >>> >>> " >>> March 212 20120314-1 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >>> Whois >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> " >>> November 2012 20121017-2 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the >>> New gTLD Program. >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >>> >>> " >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >>> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >>> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >>> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >>> No vote is required for such action. >>> " >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>>> Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one >>>> their preemptory decisions. >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >>>> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, > > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anne and all, >>>>> >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation >>>> that the council should follow a related board request. I think >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debate following the >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. >>>>> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>>> Julie? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>>> says, >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an >>>> answer >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >>>>> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and >>>>> the >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>>> "oasis" >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >>>>> at >>>> the >>>> GNSO level. >>>>> >>>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named >>>>> within >>>> the message. >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply >>>>> e-mail and delete the >>>> original message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>>> comment >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>>> >>>>> jse >>>>> >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>>> Inc. >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund > >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >; >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>>> deleted? >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> From: , Anne > >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>> >, >>>> Julie Hedlund > >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>>> If >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would >>>> not apply. >>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed >>>> Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>> clarification to >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold >>>> all >>>> caps: >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change >>>> in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that >>>>> the >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>>> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is >>>>> accepted >>>> by the >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>>> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >>>>> the >>>> SCI >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of >>>> Wednesday, >>>> 12 >>>> December.** >>>>> >>>>> With best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of >>>> termination orsuspension. >>>> The >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>>> support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>>> initiation >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; >>>> or warranting a suspension; or >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack >>>> of volunteer participation. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>>>> termination, >>>> the >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>>>> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > PDP.docx> -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l?employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu?il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Wed Dec 12 21:06:22 2012 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:06:22 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DD0B410@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DD0E22B@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Julie, I like the idea, but it could not be limited to where the Board has requested the PDP because as Marika pointed out, sometimes the Board just needs "Answers" or they request an "Issues Report". It might say "subject to ICANN Board review in those cases where the Board has requested GNSO input." Anne [cid:626085520 at 12122012-0313]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 at LRLaw.com * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 12:50 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi Anne, Perhaps we could go back to an earlier suggestion of yours and amend the footnote accordingly. That is, you suggested we could substitute "subject to Board review" in place of "until further notice." However, not all PDP suspensions may warrant a Board review because they may not be PDPs that resulted from a Board request. So perhaps we could say, "subject to review by the ICANN Board in those cases where they Board has requested a PDP" or something like that. It seems that change could address the issue that the Board should have the opportunity to review a suspension on a PDP it has requested and could ask for a specific report from the Council accordingly. Perhaps we don't need to specify that the GNSO Council must provide a report, or the terms of a report, but could leave it up to the Board as to what they would wish to request. I'm not sure the change is minor enough to avoid a public comment process, but that is for the SCI and the Council to decide. Just a suggestion. With best regards, Julie From: , Anne > Date: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 1:47 PM To: Marika Konings >, Julie Hedlund >, Alain Berranger >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Marika, This sounds quite complicated to me and could perhaps serve as the topic of its own PDP on organizational behavior. All I was really suggesting is that if a PDP is suspended and it involves a topic where the Board needs answers or initiated it somehow, there should be a written report (or reports) to the Board on the status of the analysis at suspension. Thank you, Anne [cid:626085520 at 12122012-031A]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 at 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: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:31 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Julie Hedlund; Alain Berranger; KnobenW at telekom.de Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Anne, reading your comments it seems that your concerns go beyond what may happen in case of the suspension of a PDP and seems to deal more with what procedures should be followed / in place to communicate with other entities such the Board and the GAC on topics of common interest that may be the subject of a PDP (whether initiated by the Board or not). As the SCI will be tasked with reviewing the overall PDP in due time, maybe an alternative approach would be to start collecting topics, like this one, that would feed into the overall review of the GNSO PDP when the SCI decides to kick that off? For example, the SCI could create a wiki page for this purpose where members of the SCI, but also other community members could raise issues that they feel would need to be considered as part of this overall review. Also, by pushing this issue a bit further down the tracks, it is also likely that the SCI will have some concrete data points by reviewing how this has been handled by the GNSO Council as there are now two PDPs underway that have been requested by the Board, in order to determine whether additional procedures or guidance is required. This issue may benefit from a more holistic approach instead of trying to shoehorn it into the issue of suspension of a PDP (which has been clarified to mean for a defined time period following which it would continue again). Just a suggestion. Best regards, Marika From: , Anne > Date: Wednesday 12 December 2012 18:45 To: Julie Hedlund >, Alain Berranger >, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > Cc: Avri Doria >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Thank you, Wolf. I am still trying to come up with language that addresses this concern but that does not create a need for a new public comment period. It almost sounds as though Marika was saying that it is implicit that this decision is subject to Board review and communication. If that is the case, I would propose we substitute "subject to Board review" in place of "until further notice" in the footnote. It does seem to me, however, that the whole issue of organizational effectiveness is an appropriate topic for SCI. I noted that in the GNSO agenda that was published, an issue was raised as to how to respond to a GAC letter asking why the GNSO had initiated a PDP with respect to a topic that the GAC viewed as simple to implement. It seems to me that if suspension occurs, the GNSO should be required to provide a full report of positions and/or reasons for suspension to the Board in the case where the Board has asked for Answers or for an Issue Report that resulted in a GNSO PDP or initiated the PDP itself pursuant to the ByLaws. The example Marika gave was Vertical Integration. The discipline of preparing such a report is that the issues and positions are clarifed for the Board and that allows for them to move forward with a decision or else to decide to wait until the suspension lifts. My own view is that suspension should not occur until such a report is finalized. If factions within the PDP can't agree on the content of such a final report, then more than one report could issue. I think SCI has an opportunity here to help encourage effective organizational behavior among the Board, the GAC, and the GNSO so that deadlocks do not occur. I know there is history with respect to the termination of a WhoIs PDP back in 2007. I also know there is pressure on ICANN to work effectively from outside organizations that may want control of the Internet. It seems to me that SCI should not be saying "What the Board does when the GNSO suspends is none of our business." Our business is to evaluate and recommend Improvements to the process when asked to do so. Anne [cid:626085520 at 12122012-0321]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 at 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: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 2:24 PM To: Alain Berranger; KnobenW at telekom.de Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Alain, One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change from the original footnote text. The previous suggestion - adding the word "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public Comment Forum on new language. As discussed during last Thursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented in the public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that the revised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days. Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longer period, perhaps 30 days. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Alain Berranger > Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, and priority... Alain On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, > wrote: We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, just bring it to the point. First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should be agreed. Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the concern? Or do others have? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't think we are unanimous. 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still concerned. avri On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, > > wrote: > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > wrote: > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position where it >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not >> answered our questions." This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >> 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) 879-4725AAikman at 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 at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >> Konings >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri >>> Doria >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >>> Specifically: >>> >>> " >>> March 212 20120314-1 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >>> Whois >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> " >>> November 2012 20121017-2 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the >>> New gTLD Program. >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >>> >>> " >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >>> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >>> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >>> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >>> No vote is required for such action. >>> " >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>>> Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one >>>> their preemptory decisions. >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >>>> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, > > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anne and all, >>>>> >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation >>>> that the council should follow a related board request. I think >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debate following the >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. >>>>> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>>> Julie? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>>> says, >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an >>>> answer >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >>>>> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and >>>>> the >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>>> "oasis" >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >>>>> at >>>> the >>>> GNSO level. >>>>> >>>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named >>>>> within >>>> the message. >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply >>>>> e-mail and delete the >>>> original message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>>> comment >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>>> >>>>> jse >>>>> >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>>> Inc. >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund > >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >; >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>>> deleted? >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> From: , Anne > >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>> >, >>>> Julie Hedlund > >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>>> If >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would >>>> not apply. >>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed >>>> Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>> clarification to >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold >>>> all >>>> caps: >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change >>>> in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that >>>>> the >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>>> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is >>>>> accepted >>>> by the >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>>> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >>>>> the >>>> SCI >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of >>>> Wednesday, >>>> 12 >>>> December.** >>>>> >>>>> With best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of >>>> termination orsuspension. >>>> The >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>>> support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>>> initiation >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; >>>> or warranting a suspension; or >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack >>>> of volunteer participation. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>>>> termination, >>>> the >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>>>> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > PDP.docx> -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l'usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l'employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu'il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Wed Dec 12 21:09:55 2012 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:09:55 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DD0E22B@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Thanks Anne. What do others think about Anne's proposed change to the Footnote? It would now read as follows (new changes in red): "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council, subject to ICANN Board review in those cases where the Board has requested GNSO input. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." With best regards, Julie From: , Anne > Date: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:06 PM To: Julie Hedlund > Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Julie, I like the idea, but it could not be limited to where the Board has requested the PDP because as Marika pointed out, sometimes the Board just needs "Answers" or they request an "Issues Report". It might say "subject to ICANN Board review in those cases where the Board has requested GNSO input." Anne [cid:626085520 at 12122012-0313]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 at 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: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 12:50 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi Anne, Perhaps we could go back to an earlier suggestion of yours and amend the footnote accordingly. That is, you suggested we could substitute "subject to Board review" in place of "until further notice." However, not all PDP suspensions may warrant a Board review because they may not be PDPs that resulted from a Board request. So perhaps we could say, "subject to review by the ICANN Board in those cases where they Board has requested a PDP" or something like that. It seems that change could address the issue that the Board should have the opportunity to review a suspension on a PDP it has requested and could ask for a specific report from the Council accordingly. Perhaps we don't need to specify that the GNSO Council must provide a report, or the terms of a report, but could leave it up to the Board as to what they would wish to request. I'm not sure the change is minor enough to avoid a public comment process, but that is for the SCI and the Council to decide. Just a suggestion. With best regards, Julie From: , Anne > Date: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 1:47 PM To: Marika Konings >, Julie Hedlund >, Alain Berranger >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Marika, This sounds quite complicated to me and could perhaps serve as the topic of its own PDP on organizational behavior. All I was really suggesting is that if a PDP is suspended and it involves a topic where the Board needs answers or initiated it somehow, there should be a written report (or reports) to the Board on the status of the analysis at suspension. Thank you, Anne [cid:626085520 at 12122012-031A]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 at 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: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:31 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Julie Hedlund; Alain Berranger; KnobenW at telekom.de Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Anne, reading your comments it seems that your concerns go beyond what may happen in case of the suspension of a PDP and seems to deal more with what procedures should be followed / in place to communicate with other entities such the Board and the GAC on topics of common interest that may be the subject of a PDP (whether initiated by the Board or not). As the SCI will be tasked with reviewing the overall PDP in due time, maybe an alternative approach would be to start collecting topics, like this one, that would feed into the overall review of the GNSO PDP when the SCI decides to kick that off? For example, the SCI could create a wiki page for this purpose where members of the SCI, but also other community members could raise issues that they feel would need to be considered as part of this overall review. Also, by pushing this issue a bit further down the tracks, it is also likely that the SCI will have some concrete data points by reviewing how this has been handled by the GNSO Council as there are now two PDPs underway that have been requested by the Board, in order to determine whether additional procedures or guidance is required. This issue may benefit from a more holistic approach instead of trying to shoehorn it into the issue of suspension of a PDP (which has been clarified to mean for a defined time period following which it would continue again). Just a suggestion. Best regards, Marika From: , Anne > Date: Wednesday 12 December 2012 18:45 To: Julie Hedlund >, Alain Berranger >, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > Cc: Avri Doria >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Thank you, Wolf. I am still trying to come up with language that addresses this concern but that does not create a need for a new public comment period. It almost sounds as though Marika was saying that it is implicit that this decision is subject to Board review and communication. If that is the case, I would propose we substitute "subject to Board review" in place of "until further notice" in the footnote. It does seem to me, however, that the whole issue of organizational effectiveness is an appropriate topic for SCI. I noted that in the GNSO agenda that was published, an issue was raised as to how to respond to a GAC letter asking why the GNSO had initiated a PDP with respect to a topic that the GAC viewed as simple to implement. It seems to me that if suspension occurs, the GNSO should be required to provide a full report of positions and/or reasons for suspension to the Board in the case where the Board has asked for Answers or for an Issue Report that resulted in a GNSO PDP or initiated the PDP itself pursuant to the ByLaws. The example Marika gave was Vertical Integration. The discipline of preparing such a report is that the issues and positions are clarifed for the Board and that allows for them to move forward with a decision or else to decide to wait until the suspension lifts. My own view is that suspension should not occur until such a report is finalized. If factions within the PDP can't agree on the content of such a final report, then more than one report could issue. I think SCI has an opportunity here to help encourage effective organizational behavior among the Board, the GAC, and the GNSO so that deadlocks do not occur. I know there is history with respect to the termination of a WhoIs PDP back in 2007. I also know there is pressure on ICANN to work effectively from outside organizations that may want control of the Internet. It seems to me that SCI should not be saying "What the Board does when the GNSO suspends is none of our business." Our business is to evaluate and recommend Improvements to the process when asked to do so. Anne [cid:626085520 at 12122012-0321]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 at 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: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 2:24 PM To: Alain Berranger; KnobenW at telekom.de Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Alain, One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change from the original footnote text. The previous suggestion ? adding the word "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public Comment Forum on new language. As discussed during last Thursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented in the public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that the revised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days. Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longer period, perhaps 30 days. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Alain Berranger > Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, and priority... Alain On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, > wrote: We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, just bring it to the point. First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should be agreed. Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the concern? Or do others have? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't think we are unanimous. 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still concerned. avri On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, > > wrote: > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > wrote: > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position where it >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not >> answered our questions." This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >> 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) 879-4725AAikman at 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 at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >> Konings >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri >>> Doria >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >>> Specifically: >>> >>> " >>> March 212 20120314-1 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >>> Whois >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> " >>> November 2012 20121017-2 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the >>> New gTLD Program. >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >>> >>> " >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >>> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >>> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >>> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >>> No vote is required for such action. >>> " >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>>> Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one >>>> their preemptory decisions. >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >>>> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, > > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anne and all, >>>>> >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation >>>> that the council should follow a related board request. I think >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debate following the >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. >>>>> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>>> Julie? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>>> says, >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an >>>> answer >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >>>>> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and >>>>> the >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>>> "oasis" >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >>>>> at >>>> the >>>> GNSO level. >>>>> >>>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named >>>>> within >>>> the message. >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply >>>>> e-mail and delete the >>>> original message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>>> comment >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>>> >>>>> jse >>>>> >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>>> Inc. >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund > >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >; >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>>> deleted? >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> From: , Anne > >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>> >, >>>> Julie Hedlund > >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>>> If >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would >>>> not apply. >>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed >>>> Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>> clarification to >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold >>>> all >>>> caps: >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change >>>> in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that >>>>> the >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>>> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is >>>>> accepted >>>> by the >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>>> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >>>>> the >>>> SCI >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of >>>> Wednesday, >>>> 12 >>>> December.** >>>>> >>>>> With best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of >>>> termination orsuspension. >>>> The >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>>> support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>>> initiation >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; >>>> or warranting a suspension; or >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack >>>> of volunteer participation. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>>>> termination, >>>> the >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>>>> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > PDP.docx> -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l?employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu?il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From KnobenW at telekom.de Wed Dec 12 21:48:46 2012 From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 22:48:46 +0100 Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DD0E22B@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Sometimes it may help to briefly summarize where we came from and where we are now: 1. The present PDP as approved contains in its related manual (annex 2 to the GNSO Operating Rules and Procedures) para 15 "Termination of PDP prior to Final Report" which did not yet cause any issues 2. The SCI was mandated by the council in April 2012 to review whether there should be a modification to the GNSO PDP (PDP) Manual to address the possible suspension of a PDP following its initiation We now try to incorporate a board action ("review") on the specific case of suspension. Wouldn't the same apply for "termination prior to Final Report" which is the headline of para 15? "Termination" is even more definitive than "suspension". But the termination was never in question, and there is no mandate for the SCI to deal with it. I think we're digging in grounds which we may enter at a later stage when the real problem is obvious in all PDP cases described. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich . ________________________________ Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Julie Hedlund Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2012 22:10 An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Thanks Anne. What do others think about Anne's proposed change to the Footnote? It would now read as follows (new changes in red): "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council, subject to ICANN Board review in those cases where the Board has requested GNSO input. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." With best regards, Julie From: , Anne > Date: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:06 PM To: Julie Hedlund > Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Julie, I like the idea, but it could not be limited to where the Board has requested the PDP because as Marika pointed out, sometimes the Board just needs "Answers" or they request an "Issues Report". It might say "subject to ICANN Board review in those cases where the Board has requested GNSO input." Anne [cid:938562421 at 12122012-1F4C]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 at 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: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 12:50 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi Anne, Perhaps we could go back to an earlier suggestion of yours and amend the footnote accordingly. That is, you suggested we could substitute "subject to Board review" in place of "until further notice." However, not all PDP suspensions may warrant a Board review because they may not be PDPs that resulted from a Board request. So perhaps we could say, "subject to review by the ICANN Board in those cases where they Board has requested a PDP" or something like that. It seems that change could address the issue that the Board should have the opportunity to review a suspension on a PDP it has requested and could ask for a specific report from the Council accordingly. Perhaps we don't need to specify that the GNSO Council must provide a report, or the terms of a report, but could leave it up to the Board as to what they would wish to request. I'm not sure the change is minor enough to avoid a public comment process, but that is for the SCI and the Council to decide. Just a suggestion. With best regards, Julie From: , Anne > Date: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 1:47 PM To: Marika Konings >, Julie Hedlund >, Alain Berranger >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Marika, This sounds quite complicated to me and could perhaps serve as the topic of its own PDP on organizational behavior. All I was really suggesting is that if a PDP is suspended and it involves a topic where the Board needs answers or initiated it somehow, there should be a written report (or reports) to the Board on the status of the analysis at suspension. Thank you, Anne [cid:938562421 at 12122012-1F53]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 at 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: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:31 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Julie Hedlund; Alain Berranger; KnobenW at telekom.de Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Anne, reading your comments it seems that your concerns go beyond what may happen in case of the suspension of a PDP and seems to deal more with what procedures should be followed / in place to communicate with other entities such the Board and the GAC on topics of common interest that may be the subject of a PDP (whether initiated by the Board or not). As the SCI will be tasked with reviewing the overall PDP in due time, maybe an alternative approach would be to start collecting topics, like this one, that would feed into the overall review of the GNSO PDP when the SCI decides to kick that off? For example, the SCI could create a wiki page for this purpose where members of the SCI, but also other community members could raise issues that they feel would need to be considered as part of this overall review. Also, by pushing this issue a bit further down the tracks, it is also likely that the SCI will have some concrete data points by reviewing how this has been handled by the GNSO Council as there are now two PDPs underway that have been requested by the Board, in order to determine whether additional procedures or guidance is required. This issue may benefit from a more holistic approach instead of trying to shoehorn it into the issue of suspension of a PDP (which has been clarified to mean for a defined time period following which it would continue again). Just a suggestion. Best regards, Marika From: , Anne > Date: Wednesday 12 December 2012 18:45 To: Julie Hedlund >, Alain Berranger >, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > Cc: Avri Doria >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Thank you, Wolf. I am still trying to come up with language that addresses this concern but that does not create a need for a new public comment period. It almost sounds as though Marika was saying that it is implicit that this decision is subject to Board review and communication. If that is the case, I would propose we substitute "subject to Board review" in place of "until further notice" in the footnote. It does seem to me, however, that the whole issue of organizational effectiveness is an appropriate topic for SCI. I noted that in the GNSO agenda that was published, an issue was raised as to how to respond to a GAC letter asking why the GNSO had initiated a PDP with respect to a topic that the GAC viewed as simple to implement. It seems to me that if suspension occurs, the GNSO should be required to provide a full report of positions and/or reasons for suspension to the Board in the case where the Board has asked for Answers or for an Issue Report that resulted in a GNSO PDP or initiated the PDP itself pursuant to the ByLaws. The example Marika gave was Vertical Integration. The discipline of preparing such a report is that the issues and positions are clarifed for the Board and that allows for them to move forward with a decision or else to decide to wait until the suspension lifts. My own view is that suspension should not occur until such a report is finalized. If factions within the PDP can't agree on the content of such a final report, then more than one report could issue. I think SCI has an opportunity here to help encourage effective organizational behavior among the Board, the GAC, and the GNSO so that deadlocks do not occur. I know there is history with respect to the termination of a WhoIs PDP back in 2007. I also know there is pressure on ICANN to work effectively from outside organizations that may want control of the Internet. It seems to me that SCI should not be saying "What the Board does when the GNSO suspends is none of our business." Our business is to evaluate and recommend Improvements to the process when asked to do so. Anne [cid:938562421 at 12122012-1F5A]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 at 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: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 2:24 PM To: Alain Berranger; KnobenW at telekom.de Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Alain, One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change from the original footnote text. The previous suggestion - adding the word "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public Comment Forum on new language. As discussed during last Thursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented in the public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that the revised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days. Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longer period, perhaps 30 days. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Alain Berranger > Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, and priority... Alain On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, > wrote: We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, just bring it to the point. First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should be agreed. Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the concern? Or do others have? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't think we are unanimous. 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still concerned. avri On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, > > wrote: > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > wrote: > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position where it >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not >> answered our questions." This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >> 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) 879-4725AAikman at 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 at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >> Konings >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri >>> Doria >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >>> Specifically: >>> >>> " >>> March 212 20120314-1 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >>> Whois >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> " >>> November 2012 20121017-2 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the >>> New gTLD Program. >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >>> >>> " >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >>> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >>> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >>> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >>> No vote is required for such action. >>> " >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>>> Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one >>>> their preemptory decisions. >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >>>> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, > > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anne and all, >>>>> >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation >>>> that the council should follow a related board request. I think >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debate following the >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. >>>>> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>>> Julie? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>>> says, >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an >>>> answer >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >>>>> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and >>>>> the >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>>> "oasis" >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >>>>> at >>>> the >>>> GNSO level. >>>>> >>>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named >>>>> within >>>> the message. >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply >>>>> e-mail and delete the >>>> original message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>>> comment >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>>> >>>>> jse >>>>> >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>>> Inc. >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund > >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >; >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>>> deleted? >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> From: , Anne > >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>> >, >>>> Julie Hedlund > >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>>> If >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would >>>> not apply. >>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed >>>> Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>> clarification to >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold >>>> all >>>> caps: >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change >>>> in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that >>>>> the >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>>> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is >>>>> accepted >>>> by the >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>>> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >>>>> the >>>> SCI >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of >>>> Wednesday, >>>> 12 >>>> December.** >>>>> >>>>> With best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of >>>> termination orsuspension. >>>> The >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>>> support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>>> initiation >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; >>>> or warranting a suspension; or >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack >>>> of volunteer participation. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>>>> termination, >>>> the >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>>>> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > PDP.docx> -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l'usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l'employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu'il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From KnobenW at telekom.de Wed Dec 12 22:11:17 2012 From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 23:11:17 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Report on SCI achievements Message-ID: All, on behalf of the Standing Committee of Improvements Implementation (SCI) I herewith like to provide the GNSO council with the following achievements. It is at the discretion of the council to deal with it accordingly. Deferral of Motions: The SCI was asked by the council to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date in those situations where a formal process for a deferral is not specifically provided (for example, certain deferrals are foreseen as part of the GNSO PDP, see http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16dec11-en.pdf). The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative or the negative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situation that may occur with regard to this informal practice. Raising an Issue: The SCI was asked to consider who can raise an issue for SCI consideration. After deliberating on this matter, the SCI agreed to maintain the status quo according to the Charter of the SCI. This means only the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council can request an item to be reviewed by the SCI. However, the GNSO Council could possibly consider communicating to other SO/ACs / individuals, that if there are issues they would like to see reviewed by the SCI they will need to channel these via the GNSO Council and/or a group chartered by the GNSO Council. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben SCI Chair -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Wed Dec 12 22:12:16 2012 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 22:12:16 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DD0E22B@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DD114C2@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Wolf-Ulrich, I agree that the mandate to SCI is to deal with suspension. Just because termination does not talk about Board requests for information or filing an interim report does not mean that suspension should not address this. Maybe we should also be recommending that termination require an interim report if the Board has requested the info. I personally do not understand why this issue is being rushed into a December agenda for GNSO that is already quite full. Anne [cid:600510322 at 12122012-0336]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 at LRLaw.com * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From: KnobenW at telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:49 PM To: julie.hedlund at icann.org; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Sometimes it may help to briefly summarize where we came from and where we are now: 1. The present PDP as approved contains in its related manual (annex 2 to the GNSO Operating Rules and Procedures) para 15 "Termination of PDP prior to Final Report" which did not yet cause any issues 2. The SCI was mandated by the council in April 2012 to review whether there should be a modification to the GNSO PDP (PDP) Manual to address the possible suspension of a PDP following its initiation We now try to incorporate a board action ("review") on the specific case of suspension. Wouldn't the same apply for "termination prior to Final Report" which is the headline of para 15? "Termination" is even more definitive than "suspension". But the termination was never in question, and there is no mandate for the SCI to deal with it. I think we're digging in grounds which we may enter at a later stage when the real problem is obvious in all PDP cases described. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich . ________________________________ Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Julie Hedlund Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2012 22:10 An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Thanks Anne. What do others think about Anne's proposed change to the Footnote? It would now read as follows (new changes in red): "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council, subject to ICANN Board review in those cases where the Board has requested GNSO input. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." With best regards, Julie From: , Anne > Date: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:06 PM To: Julie Hedlund > Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Julie, I like the idea, but it could not be limited to where the Board has requested the PDP because as Marika pointed out, sometimes the Board just needs "Answers" or they request an "Issues Report". It might say "subject to ICANN Board review in those cases where the Board has requested GNSO input." Anne [cid:600510322 at 12122012-033D]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 at 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: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 12:50 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi Anne, Perhaps we could go back to an earlier suggestion of yours and amend the footnote accordingly. That is, you suggested we could substitute "subject to Board review" in place of "until further notice." However, not all PDP suspensions may warrant a Board review because they may not be PDPs that resulted from a Board request. So perhaps we could say, "subject to review by the ICANN Board in those cases where they Board has requested a PDP" or something like that. It seems that change could address the issue that the Board should have the opportunity to review a suspension on a PDP it has requested and could ask for a specific report from the Council accordingly. Perhaps we don't need to specify that the GNSO Council must provide a report, or the terms of a report, but could leave it up to the Board as to what they would wish to request. I'm not sure the change is minor enough to avoid a public comment process, but that is for the SCI and the Council to decide. Just a suggestion. With best regards, Julie From: , Anne > Date: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 1:47 PM To: Marika Konings >, Julie Hedlund >, Alain Berranger >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Marika, This sounds quite complicated to me and could perhaps serve as the topic of its own PDP on organizational behavior. All I was really suggesting is that if a PDP is suspended and it involves a topic where the Board needs answers or initiated it somehow, there should be a written report (or reports) to the Board on the status of the analysis at suspension. Thank you, Anne [cid:600510322 at 12122012-0344]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 at 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: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:31 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Julie Hedlund; Alain Berranger; KnobenW at telekom.de Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Anne, reading your comments it seems that your concerns go beyond what may happen in case of the suspension of a PDP and seems to deal more with what procedures should be followed / in place to communicate with other entities such the Board and the GAC on topics of common interest that may be the subject of a PDP (whether initiated by the Board or not). As the SCI will be tasked with reviewing the overall PDP in due time, maybe an alternative approach would be to start collecting topics, like this one, that would feed into the overall review of the GNSO PDP when the SCI decides to kick that off? For example, the SCI could create a wiki page for this purpose where members of the SCI, but also other community members could raise issues that they feel would need to be considered as part of this overall review. Also, by pushing this issue a bit further down the tracks, it is also likely that the SCI will have some concrete data points by reviewing how this has been handled by the GNSO Council as there are now two PDPs underway that have been requested by the Board, in order to determine whether additional procedures or guidance is required. This issue may benefit from a more holistic approach instead of trying to shoehorn it into the issue of suspension of a PDP (which has been clarified to mean for a defined time period following which it would continue again). Just a suggestion. Best regards, Marika From: , Anne > Date: Wednesday 12 December 2012 18:45 To: Julie Hedlund >, Alain Berranger >, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > Cc: Avri Doria >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Thank you, Wolf. I am still trying to come up with language that addresses this concern but that does not create a need for a new public comment period. It almost sounds as though Marika was saying that it is implicit that this decision is subject to Board review and communication. If that is the case, I would propose we substitute "subject to Board review" in place of "until further notice" in the footnote. It does seem to me, however, that the whole issue of organizational effectiveness is an appropriate topic for SCI. I noted that in the GNSO agenda that was published, an issue was raised as to how to respond to a GAC letter asking why the GNSO had initiated a PDP with respect to a topic that the GAC viewed as simple to implement. It seems to me that if suspension occurs, the GNSO should be required to provide a full report of positions and/or reasons for suspension to the Board in the case where the Board has asked for Answers or for an Issue Report that resulted in a GNSO PDP or initiated the PDP itself pursuant to the ByLaws. The example Marika gave was Vertical Integration. The discipline of preparing such a report is that the issues and positions are clarifed for the Board and that allows for them to move forward with a decision or else to decide to wait until the suspension lifts. My own view is that suspension should not occur until such a report is finalized. If factions within the PDP can't agree on the content of such a final report, then more than one report could issue. I think SCI has an opportunity here to help encourage effective organizational behavior among the Board, the GAC, and the GNSO so that deadlocks do not occur. I know there is history with respect to the termination of a WhoIs PDP back in 2007. I also know there is pressure on ICANN to work effectively from outside organizations that may want control of the Internet. It seems to me that SCI should not be saying "What the Board does when the GNSO suspends is none of our business." Our business is to evaluate and recommend Improvements to the process when asked to do so. Anne [cid:600510322 at 12122012-034B]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 at 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: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 2:24 PM To: Alain Berranger; KnobenW at telekom.de Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Alain, One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change from the original footnote text. The previous suggestion - adding the word "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public Comment Forum on new language. As discussed during last Thursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented in the public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that the revised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days. Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longer period, perhaps 30 days. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Alain Berranger > Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, and priority... Alain On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, > wrote: We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, just bring it to the point. First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should be agreed. Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the concern? Or do others have? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't think we are unanimous. 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still concerned. avri On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, > > wrote: > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > wrote: > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position where it >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not >> answered our questions." This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >> 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) 879-4725AAikman at 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 at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >> Konings >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri >>> Doria >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >>> Specifically: >>> >>> " >>> March 212 20120314-1 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >>> Whois >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> " >>> November 2012 20121017-2 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the >>> New gTLD Program. >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >>> >>> " >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >>> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >>> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >>> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >>> No vote is required for such action. >>> " >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>>> Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one >>>> their preemptory decisions. >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >>>> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, > > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anne and all, >>>>> >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation >>>> that the council should follow a related board request. I think >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debate following the >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. >>>>> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>>> Julie? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>>> says, >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an >>>> answer >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >>>>> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and >>>>> the >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>>> "oasis" >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >>>>> at >>>> the >>>> GNSO level. >>>>> >>>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named >>>>> within >>>> the message. >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply >>>>> e-mail and delete the >>>> original message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>>> comment >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>>> >>>>> jse >>>>> >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>>> Inc. >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund > >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >; >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>>> deleted? >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> From: , Anne > >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>> >, >>>> Julie Hedlund > >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>>> If >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would >>>> not apply. >>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed >>>> Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>> clarification to >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold >>>> all >>>> caps: >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change >>>> in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that >>>>> the >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>>> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is >>>>> accepted >>>> by the >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>>> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >>>>> the >>>> SCI >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of >>>> Wednesday, >>>> 12 >>>> December.** >>>>> >>>>> With best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of >>>> termination orsuspension. >>>> The >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>>> support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>>> initiation >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; >>>> or warranting a suspension; or >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack >>>> of volunteer participation. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>>>> termination, >>>> the >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>>>> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > PDP.docx> -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l'usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l'employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu'il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From KnobenW at telekom.de Wed Dec 12 22:12:45 2012 From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 23:12:45 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft motion Message-ID: All, I herewith submit the following << Motion to Adopt Revised PDP Manual Incorporating Modifications to Include the Suspension of a PDP Made by: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Seconded by: WHEREAS: Having encountered the need to suspend a Policy Development Process (PDP) for a limited amount of time, the GNSO Council realized that currently the PDP Manual does not contain a specific provision on how to deal with such a situation; The GNSO Council requested the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) in April 2012 to review whether there should be a modification to the GNSO PDP Manual to address the possible suspension of a PDP following its initiation; The SCI deliberated on provisions for suspension of a PDP and reached consensus on proposed modifications to be incorporated in Section 15 of the GNSO PDP Manual, which also is included as Annex 2 in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures; The revised PDP manual, including the proposed provisions for suspension of a PDP, was put out for a minimum 21-day public comment period on 22 October 2012 and a 21-day reply comment period ending on 03 December (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gnso-pdp-manual-22oct12-en.htm) as required by the ICANN Bylaws; The SCI determined that the result of the public comment period required no further changes , but in order to clarify the definition of a suspension the SCI amended the footnote to include the word "stated" and to delete the words "until further notice" as illustrated in the redlined section at INSERT LINK; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED The GNSO Council adopts the revised PDP Manual including the providing for the suspension of a PDP (see INSERT LINK TO REVISED GNSO COUNCIL OPERATING PROCEDURES). The GNSO Council instructs ICANN staff to post the new version of the PDP Manual and to include it as a revised Annex 2 in the GNSO Operating Procedures, effective immediately upon adoption. >> An excerpt of the PDP manual modified to address suspension of a PDP is attached. The SCI agreed to submit this motion although an issue which came up after the reply comment period is still being discussed but nevertheless expected to be solved in advance to the council meeting. Still under discussion is the footnote 1 in para 15 of the modified PDP manual. In the less likely case of no consensus the motion and agenda item shall be withdrawn. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alain.berranger at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 22:59:27 2012 From: alain.berranger at gmail.com (Alain Berranger) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 17:59:27 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thks Julie for the reminder... I have no objection of course to Wolf-Ulrich's proposal below. Alain On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 7:05 AM, wrote: > ** > All, > > per its charter, the SCI is expected to take decisions using a 'full > consensus' process ("when no one in the group speaks against the > recommendation in its last readings"). > Obviously it would be ideal if all members support a certain position. > > It would also be ideal if we find consensus today which is the deadline > for motions before the next counciil meeting. But in order to reduce time > pressure I could imagine the option to submit the draft motion today, > noting that there are some issues that are still being discussed by the SCI > which may result in withdrawal of the motion and agenda item if no > agreement can be found. > > *If there is no objection I'll do so accordingly at the end of the day.* > > Thanks for this valuable discussion and for your understanding. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > ** > From: Julie Hedlund > To: Alain Berranger , "KnobenW at telekom.de" < > KnobenW at telekom.de> > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" , "avri at acm.org" , > "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Alain, > > One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive > change from the original footnote text. The previous suggestion ? adding > the word "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the > SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public > Comment Forum on new language. As discussed during last Thursday's > meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented in the > public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that the > revised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days. > Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longer > period, perhaps 30 days. > > With best regards, > > Julie > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > > From: Alain Berranger > Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM > To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" , "avri at acm.org" , > "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the > GNSO Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, > timing, and priority... > > Alain > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, wrote: > >> >> We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, >> just bring it to the point. >> >> First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure >> should be agreed. >> >> Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate >> the concern? Or do others have? >> >> >> Best regards >> Wolf-Ulrich >> >> >> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto: >> owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, >> Anne >> Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 >> An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> >> Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't think >> we are unanimous. >> 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 <%28520%29%20879-4725> >> AAikman at 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 at icann.org [mailto: >> owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM >> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> >> Hi, >> >> Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still >> concerned. >> >> avri >> >> On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, >> wrote: >> >> > Thanks Marika for clarification. >> > >> > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote >> (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council >> meeting. >> > >> > >> > Best regards >> > Wolf-Ulrich >> > >> > >> > >> > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >> > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] >> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 >> > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; >> > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> > >> > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues >> > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also >> > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the >> > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been >> > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the >> Vertical Integration PDP: >> > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). >> > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in >> > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following >> > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: >> > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. >> > >> > With best regards, >> > >> > Marika >> > >> > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" wrote: >> > >> >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls >> >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in >> >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the >> >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, >> >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there >> >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the >> >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is >> >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an >> >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on >> >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a >> >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a >> >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status >> >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed >> >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or >> >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position where it >> >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not >> >> answered our questions." This is particularly unsatisfactory where >> the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >> >> 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) 879-4725AAikman at 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 at icann.org >> >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >> >> Konings >> >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >> >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> >> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the >> >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation >> >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process >> >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a >> >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois >> >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of >> >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions >> >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of >> >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out >> >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no >> >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically >> >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a >> >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which >> >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information >> >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue >> >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >> >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another >> >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board >> >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result >> >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to >> >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so >> that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. >> >> >> >> With best regards, >> >> >> >> Marika >> >> >> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" wrote: >> >> >> >>> >> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Best regards >> >>> Wolf-Ulrich >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >> >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri >> >>> Doria >> >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >> >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >> >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. >> >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. >> >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for >> >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate >> the PDP. >> >>> Specifically: >> >>> >> >>> " >> >>> March 212 20120314-1 >> >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on >> 'thick' >> >>> Whois >> >>> >> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois >> >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 >> >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >> >>> >> >>> .... >> >>> " >> >>> >> >>> " >> >>> November 2012 20121017-2 >> >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >> >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >> >>> >> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >> >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >> >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the >> >>> New gTLD Program. >> >>> >> >>> .... >> >>> " >> >>> >> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >> >>> >> >>> " >> >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >> >>> >> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing >> >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP >> Manual. >> >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the >> >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can >> >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, >> >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. >> >>> >> >>> .... >> >>> >> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >> >>> >> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >> >>> >> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >> >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >> >>> No vote is required for such action. >> >>> " >> >>> >> >>> avri >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >> >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >> >>>> >> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >> >>>> >> >>>> -----Original Message----- >> >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >> >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >> >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >> >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit >> >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into >> >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's >> >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >> >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic >> >>>> principles. >> >>>> >> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >> >>>> >> >>>> Kind regards, >> >>>> >> >>>> RA >> >>>> >> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff >> >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -----Original Message----- >> >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >> >>>> Doria >> >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >> >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Hi, >> >>>> >> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >> >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >> >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one >> >>>> their preemptory decisions. >> >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >> >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >> >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the >> >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even >> >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >> >>>> >> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >> >>>> >> >>>> avri >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> Anne and all, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >> >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation >> >>>> that the council should follow a related board request. I think >> >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debate following the >> >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >> >>>> Julie? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Best regards >> >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >> >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >> >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >> >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >> >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >>>>> >> >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >> >>>> says, >> >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an >> >>>> answer >> >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and >> >>>>> the >> >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >> >>>> "oasis" >> >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >> >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >> >>>>> at >> >>>> the >> >>>> GNSO level. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> 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 <%28520%29%20879-4725> >> AAikman at LRLaw.com . >> >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >> >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named >> >>>>> within >> >>>> the message. >> >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or >> >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you >> >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution >> >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this >> >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply >> >>>>> e-mail and delete the >> >>>> original message. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >> >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >> >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >> >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >> >>>> comment >> >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> jse >> >>>>> >> >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >> >>>> Inc. >> >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund >> >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" ; >> >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >> >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >> >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >> >>>> deleted? >> >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Best regards, >> >>>>> Julie >> >>>>> >> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >> >>>> temporary >> >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >> >>>> decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or >> >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >> >>>>> >> >>>>> From: , Anne >> >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >> >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >> >>>> , >> >>>> Julie Hedlund >> >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >>>>> >> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further >> notice"? >> >>>> If >> >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would >> >>>> not apply. >> >>>> Anne >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >> >>>>> >> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >> >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >> >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >> >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> >>>> PDP--Proposed >> >>>> Revised Footnote >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Dear SCI members, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >> >>>> clarification to >> >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a >> PDP. >> >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold >> >>>> all >> >>>> caps: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >> >>>> temporary >> >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >> >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change >> >>>> in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a >> suspension." >> >>>>> >> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that >> >>>>> the >> >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is >> >>>>> accepted >> >>>> by the >> >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >> >>>>> the >> >>>> SCI >> >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of >> >>>> Wednesday, >> >>>> 12 >> >>>> December.** >> >>>>> >> >>>>> With best regards, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Julie >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >> >>>>> >> >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >> >>>>> >> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >> >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a >> >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of >> >>>> termination orsuspension. >> >>>> The >> >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >> >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >> >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >> >>>> support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and >> >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; >> >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >> >>>> initiation >> >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; >> >>>> or warranting a suspension; or >> >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >> >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired >> >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack >> >>>> of volunteer participation. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >> >>>>> termination, >> >>>> the >> >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior >> >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described >> above). >> >>>>> >> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >> >>>> temporary >> >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >> >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in >> >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> 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. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> > > > PDP.docx>> of a PDP.docx> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA > Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca > Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca > Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org > NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org > Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ > O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 > Skype: alain.berranger > > > AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? > Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l?usage exclusif du destinataire > ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le > destinataire, ou l?employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au > destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu?il lui est strictement > interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le > reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou > si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer > sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de > votre coop?ration. > > CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE > This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use > of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone > other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for > forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, > distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or > in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this > e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and > destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. > > > -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l?employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu?il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Thu Dec 13 02:12:51 2012 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:12:51 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DD12474@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> I do not believe that this "negative response" mechanism is in accordance with the full consensus process. I also believe I spoke against this at the last reading. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: KnobenW at telekom.de [KnobenW at telekom.de] Received: Wednesday, 12 Dec 2012, 5:06am To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, per its charter, the SCI is expected to take decisions using a 'full consensus' process ("when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings"). Obviously it would be ideal if all members support a certain position. It would also be ideal if we find consensus today which is the deadline for motions before the next counciil meeting. But in order to reduce time pressure I could imagine the option to submit the draft motion today, noting that there are some issues that are still being discussed by the SCI which may result in withdrawal of the motion and agenda item if no agreement can be found. If there is no objection I'll do so accordingly at the end of the day. Thanks for this valuable discussion and for your understanding. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Julie Hedlund > To: Alain Berranger >, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Alain, One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change from the original footnote text. The previous suggestion ? adding the word "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public Comment Forum on new language. As discussed during last Thursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented in the public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that the revised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days. Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longer period, perhaps 30 days. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Alain Berranger > Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, and priority... Alain On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, > wrote: We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, just bring it to the point. First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should be agreed. Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the concern? Or do others have? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't think we are unanimous. 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still concerned. avri On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, > > wrote: > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > wrote: > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position where it >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not >> answered our questions." This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >> 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) 879-4725AAikman at 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 at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >> Konings >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri >>> Doria >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >>> Specifically: >>> >>> " >>> March 212 20120314-1 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >>> Whois >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> " >>> November 2012 20121017-2 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the >>> New gTLD Program. >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >>> >>> " >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >>> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >>> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >>> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >>> No vote is required for such action. >>> " >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>>> Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one >>>> their preemptory decisions. >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >>>> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, > > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anne and all, >>>>> >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation >>>> that the council should follow a related board request. I think >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debate following the >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. >>>>> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>>> Julie? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>>> says, >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an >>>> answer >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >>>>> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and >>>>> the >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>>> "oasis" >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >>>>> at >>>> the >>>> GNSO level. >>>>> >>>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named >>>>> within >>>> the message. >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply >>>>> e-mail and delete the >>>> original message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>>> comment >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>>> >>>>> jse >>>>> >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>>> Inc. >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund > >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >; >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>>> deleted? >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> From: , Anne > >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>> >, >>>> Julie Hedlund > >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>>> If >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would >>>> not apply. >>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed >>>> Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>> clarification to >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold >>>> all >>>> caps: >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change >>>> in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that >>>>> the >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>>> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is >>>>> accepted >>>> by the >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>>> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >>>>> the >>>> SCI >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of >>>> Wednesday, >>>> 12 >>>> December.** >>>>> >>>>> With best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of >>>> termination orsuspension. >>>> The >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>>> support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>>> initiation >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; >>>> or warranting a suspension; or >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack >>>> of volunteer participation. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>>>> termination, >>>> the >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>>>> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > PDP.docx> -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l?employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu?il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From KnobenW at telekom.de Thu Dec 13 15:48:59 2012 From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:48:59 +0100 Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DD12474@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DD12474@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: All, from the list I did not understand a clear objection against sending the draft motion to the council with the option of withdrawing it if there can't be found SCI consensus. So I took this responsibility and did it to preserve this chance. I'd like to encourage all of us to continue working at a solution re the footnote. 2 suggestions are at the table: 1. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 2. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council, subject to ICANN Board review in those cases where the Board has requested GNSO input. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. Please comment. I wonder what how to proceed if there will be no consensus found at thew time being. On the one hand I've got the impression that a majority would be satisfied with suggestion #1 but also open to find a solution which doesn't cause the need for another public comment period. In case of no consensus we could also - as we did with other items discussed at the SCI - report to the council where we are, that there has been a public comment period successfully finished, but there are still concerns which would prevent the SCI from consensus. The council may then decide how to deal with the (publicly commented) text. I would be thankful hearing your assessment on and under which conditions consensus could still be achieved. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2012 03:13 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I do not believe that this "negative response" mechanism is in accordance with the full consensus process. I also believe I spoke against this at the last reading. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: KnobenW at telekom.de [KnobenW at telekom.de] Received: Wednesday, 12 Dec 2012, 5:06am To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, per its charter, the SCI is expected to take decisions using a 'full consensus' process ("when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings"). Obviously it would be ideal if all members support a certain position. It would also be ideal if we find consensus today which is the deadline for motions before the next counciil meeting. But in order to reduce time pressure I could imagine the option to submit the draft motion today, noting that there are some issues that are still being discussed by the SCI which may result in withdrawal of the motion and agenda item if no agreement can be found. If there is no objection I'll do so accordingly at the end of the day. Thanks for this valuable discussion and for your understanding. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Julie Hedlund > To: Alain Berranger >, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Alain, One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change from the original footnote text. The previous suggestion - adding the word "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public Comment Forum on new language. As discussed during last Thursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented in the public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that the revised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days. Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longer period, perhaps 30 days. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Alain Berranger > Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, and priority... Alain On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, > wrote: We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, just bring it to the point. First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should be agreed. Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the concern? Or do others have? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't think we are unanimous. 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still concerned. avri On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, > > wrote: > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > wrote: > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position where it >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not >> answered our questions." This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >> 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) 879-4725AAikman at 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 at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >> Konings >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri >>> Doria >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >>> Specifically: >>> >>> " >>> March 212 20120314-1 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >>> Whois >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> " >>> November 2012 20121017-2 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the >>> New gTLD Program. >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >>> >>> " >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >>> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >>> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >>> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >>> No vote is required for such action. >>> " >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>>> Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one >>>> their preemptory decisions. >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >>>> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, > > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anne and all, >>>>> >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation >>>> that the council should follow a related board request. I think >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debate following the >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. >>>>> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>>> Julie? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>>> says, >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an >>>> answer >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >>>>> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and >>>>> the >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>>> "oasis" >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >>>>> at >>>> the >>>> GNSO level. >>>>> >>>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named >>>>> within >>>> the message. >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply >>>>> e-mail and delete the >>>> original message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>>> comment >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>>> >>>>> jse >>>>> >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>>> Inc. >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund > >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >; >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>>> deleted? >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> From: , Anne > >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>> >, >>>> Julie Hedlund > >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>>> If >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would >>>> not apply. >>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed >>>> Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>> clarification to >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold >>>> all >>>> caps: >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change >>>> in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that >>>>> the >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>>> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is >>>>> accepted >>>> by the >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>>> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >>>>> the >>>> SCI >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of >>>> Wednesday, >>>> 12 >>>> December.** >>>>> >>>>> With best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of >>>> termination orsuspension. >>>> The >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>>> support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>>> initiation >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; >>>> or warranting a suspension; or >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack >>>> of volunteer participation. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>>>> termination, >>>> the >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>>>> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > PDP.docx> -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l'usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l'employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu'il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From KnobenW at telekom.de Thu Dec 13 15:49:06 2012 From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:49:06 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: Draft motion Message-ID: All, the excerpt of the PDP manual modified to address suspension of a PDP is attached. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich _____________________________________________ Von: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2012 23:13 An: council at gnso.icann.org Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: Draft motion All, I herewith submit the following << Motion to Adopt Revised PDP Manual Incorporating Modifications to Include the Suspension of a PDP Made by: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Seconded by: WHEREAS: Having encountered the need to suspend a Policy Development Process (PDP) for a limited amount of time, the GNSO Council realized that currently the PDP Manual does not contain a specific provision on how to deal with such a situation; The GNSO Council requested the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) in April 2012 to review whether there should be a modification to the GNSO PDP Manual to address the possible suspension of a PDP following its initiation; The SCI deliberated on provisions for suspension of a PDP and reached consensus on proposed modifications to be incorporated in Section 15 of the GNSO PDP Manual, which also is included as Annex 2 in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures; The revised PDP manual, including the proposed provisions for suspension of a PDP, was put out for a minimum 21-day public comment period on 22 October 2012 and a 21-day reply comment period ending on 03 December (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gnso-pdp-manual-22oct12-en.htm) as required by the ICANN Bylaws; The SCI determined that the result of the public comment period required no further changes , but in order to clarify the definition of a suspension the SCI amended the footnote to include the word "stated" and to delete the words "until further notice" as illustrated in the redlined section at INSERT LINK; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED The GNSO Council adopts the revised PDP Manual including the providing for the suspension of a PDP (see INSERT LINK TO REVISED GNSO COUNCIL OPERATING PROCEDURES). The GNSO Council instructs ICANN staff to post the new version of the PDP Manual and to include it as a revised Annex 2 in the GNSO Operating Procedures, effective immediately upon adoption. >> An excerpt of the PDP manual modified to address suspension of a PDP is attached. The SCI agreed to submit this motion although an issue which came up after the reply comment period is still being discussed but nevertheless expected to be solved in advance to the council meeting. Still under discussion is the footnote 1 in para 15 of the modified PDP manual. In the less likely case of no consensus the motion and agenda item shall be withdrawn. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Excerpt of PDP Manual Modified to Address Suspension of a PDP.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 103927 bytes Desc: Excerpt of PDP Manual Modified to Address Suspension of a PDP.docx URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Thu Dec 13 15:58:18 2012 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:58:18 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DD12474@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DD13BE8@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> I would propose a third option: 3. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. [cid:378205215 at 13122012-3268]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 at LRLaw.com * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From: KnobenW at telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:49 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, from the list I did not understand a clear objection against sending the draft motion to the council with the option of withdrawing it if there can't be found SCI consensus. So I took this responsibility and did it to preserve this chance. I'd like to encourage all of us to continue working at a solution re the footnote. 2 suggestions are at the table: 1. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 2. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council, subject to ICANN Board review in those cases where the Board has requested GNSO input. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. Please comment. I wonder what how to proceed if there will be no consensus found at thew time being. On the one hand I've got the impression that a majority would be satisfied with suggestion #1 but also open to find a solution which doesn't cause the need for another public comment period. In case of no consensus we could also - as we did with other items discussed at the SCI - report to the council where we are, that there has been a public comment period successfully finished, but there are still concerns which would prevent the SCI from consensus. The council may then decide how to deal with the (publicly commented) text. I would be thankful hearing your assessment on and under which conditions consensus could still be achieved. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2012 03:13 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I do not believe that this "negative response" mechanism is in accordance with the full consensus process. I also believe I spoke against this at the last reading. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: KnobenW at telekom.de [KnobenW at telekom.de] Received: Wednesday, 12 Dec 2012, 5:06am To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, per its charter, the SCI is expected to take decisions using a 'full consensus' process ("when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings"). Obviously it would be ideal if all members support a certain position. It would also be ideal if we find consensus today which is the deadline for motions before the next counciil meeting. But in order to reduce time pressure I could imagine the option to submit the draft motion today, noting that there are some issues that are still being discussed by the SCI which may result in withdrawal of the motion and agenda item if no agreement can be found. If there is no objection I'll do so accordingly at the end of the day. Thanks for this valuable discussion and for your understanding. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Julie Hedlund > To: Alain Berranger >, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Alain, One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change from the original footnote text. The previous suggestion - adding the word "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public Comment Forum on new language. As discussed during last Thursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented in the public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that the revised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days. Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longer period, perhaps 30 days. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Alain Berranger > Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, and priority... Alain On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, > wrote: We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, just bring it to the point. First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should be agreed. Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the concern? Or do others have? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't think we are unanimous. 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still concerned. avri On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, > > wrote: > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > wrote: > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position where it >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not >> answered our questions." This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >> 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) 879-4725AAikman at 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 at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >> Konings >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri >>> Doria >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >>> Specifically: >>> >>> " >>> March 212 20120314-1 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >>> Whois >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> " >>> November 2012 20121017-2 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the >>> New gTLD Program. >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >>> >>> " >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >>> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >>> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >>> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >>> No vote is required for such action. >>> " >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>>> Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one >>>> their preemptory decisions. >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >>>> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, > > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anne and all, >>>>> >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation >>>> that the council should follow a related board request. I think >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debate following the >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. >>>>> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>>> Julie? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>>> says, >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an >>>> answer >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >>>>> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and >>>>> the >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>>> "oasis" >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >>>>> at >>>> the >>>> GNSO level. >>>>> >>>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named >>>>> within >>>> the message. >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply >>>>> e-mail and delete the >>>> original message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>>> comment >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>>> >>>>> jse >>>>> >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>>> Inc. >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund > >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >; >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>>> deleted? >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> From: , Anne > >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>> >, >>>> Julie Hedlund > >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>>> If >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would >>>> not apply. >>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed >>>> Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>> clarification to >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold >>>> all >>>> caps: >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change >>>> in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that >>>>> the >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>>> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is >>>>> accepted >>>> by the >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>>> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >>>>> the >>>> SCI >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of >>>> Wednesday, >>>> 12 >>>> December.** >>>>> >>>>> With best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of >>>> termination orsuspension. >>>> The >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>>> support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>>> initiation >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; >>>> or warranting a suspension; or >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack >>>> of volunteer participation. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>>>> termination, >>>> the >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>>>> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > PDP.docx> -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l'usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l'employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu'il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: attc09c9.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: attc09c9.gif URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Thu Dec 13 17:38:39 2012 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 12:38:39 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DD13BE8@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Question for all re: an interim status report to the ICANN Board If I understand Anne?s line of thinking, the concern is about how to deal specifically with Board requested PDPs that are suspended. However, option 3 sounds like we are recommending that the Board receive an interim report whether they have initiated the PDP or not. This is a significant change and would only add more to the Board?s already full plate, in my view. That said, in circumstance where a suspension has been called for, I do see the merit of requesting that Council generate an interim report and post it to inform the entire community of the suspension and reason(s) for which it was suspended. That would be quite logical in the larger scheme of things. Anne, please correct me if I am wrong. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. _____ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:58 AM To: 'KnobenW at telekom.de'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I would propose a third option: 3. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 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 at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. _____ From: KnobenW at telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:49 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, from the list I did not understand a clear objection against sending the draft motion to the council with the option of withdrawing it if there can't be found SCI consensus. So I took this responsibility and did it to preserve this chance. I'd like to encourage all of us to continue working at a solution re the footnote. 2 suggestions are at the table: 1. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 2. Suspension is a STATEDtime interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council, subject to ICANN Board review in those cases where the Board has requested GNSO input. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 3. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. Please comment. I wonder what how to proceed if there will be no consensus found at thew time being. On the one hand I've got the impression that a majority would be satisfied with suggestion #1 but also open to find a solution which doesn't cause the need for another public comment period. In case of no consensus we could also - as we did with other items discussed at the SCI - report to the council where we are, that there has been a public comment period successfully finished, but there are still concerns which would prevent the SCI from consensus. The council may then decide how to deal with the (publicly commented) text. I would be thankful hearing your assessment on and under which conditions consensus could still be achieved. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2012 03:13 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I do not believe that this "negative response" mechanism is in accordance with the full consensus process. I also believe I spoke against this at the last reading. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: KnobenW at telekom.de [KnobenW at telekom.de] Received: Wednesday, 12 Dec 2012, 5:06am To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, per its charter, the SCI is expected to take decisions using a 'full consensus' process ("when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings"). Obviously it would be ideal if all members support a certain position. It would also be ideal if we find consensus today which is the deadline for motions before the next counciil meeting. But in order to reduce time pressure I could imagine the option to submit the draft motion today, noting that there are some issues that are still being discussed by the SCI which may result in withdrawal of the motion and agenda item if no agreement can be found. If there is no objection I'll do so accordingly at the end of the day. Thanks for this valuable discussion and for your understanding. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Julie Hedlund To: Alain Berranger , "KnobenW at telekom.de" Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" , "avri at acm.org" , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Alain, One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change from the original footnote text. The previous suggestion ? adding the word "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public Comment Forum on new language. As discussed during last Thursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented in the public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that the revised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days. Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longer period, perhaps 30 days. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Alain Berranger Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" , "avri at acm.org" , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, and priority... Alain On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, wrote: We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, just bring it to the point. First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should be agreed. Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the concern? Or do others have? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't think we are unanimous. 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still concerned. avri On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, wrote: > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" wrote: > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position where it >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not >> answered our questions." This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >> 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) 879-4725AAikman at 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 at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >> Konings >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri >>> Doria >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >>> Specifically: >>> >>> " >>> March 212 20120314-1 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >>> Whois >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> " >>> November 2012 20121017-2 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the >>> New gTLD Program. >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >>> >>> " >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >>> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >>> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >>> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >>> No vote is required for such action. >>> " >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>>> Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one >>>> their preemptory decisions. >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >>>> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anne and all, >>>>> >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation >>>> that the council should follow a related board request. I think >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debate following the >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. >>>>> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>>> Julie? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>>> says, >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an >>>> answer >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >>>>> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and >>>>> the >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>>> "oasis" >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >>>>> at >>>> the >>>> GNSO level. >>>>> >>>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named >>>>> within >>>> the message. >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply >>>>> e-mail and delete the >>>> original message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>>> comment >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>>> >>>>> jse >>>>> >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>>> Inc. >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" ; >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>>> deleted? >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> From: , Anne >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>> , >>>> Julie Hedlund >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>>> If >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would >>>> not apply. >>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed >>>> Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>> clarification to >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold >>>> all >>>> caps: >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change >>>> in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that >>>>> the >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>>> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is >>>>> accepted >>>> by the >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>>> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >>>>> the >>>> SCI >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of >>>> Wednesday, >>>> 12 >>>> December.** >>>>> >>>>> With best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of >>>> termination orsuspension. >>>> The >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>>> support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>>> initiation >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; >>>> or warranting a suspension; or >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack >>>> of volunteer participation. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>>>> termination, >>>> the >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>>>> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > PDP.docx> -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l?employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu?il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: not available URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Thu Dec 13 17:44:07 2012 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:44:07 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DD13BE8@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DD14458@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Ron, I would certainly support that notion in the interest of accountability and transparency. [cid:149464117 at 13122012-0225]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 at LRLaw.com * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Question for all re: an interim status report to the ICANN Board If I understand Anne's line of thinking, the concern is about how to deal specifically with Board requested PDPs that are suspended. However, option 3 sounds like we are recommending that the Board receive an interim report whether they have initiated the PDP or not. This is a significant change and would only add more to the Board's already full plate, in my view. That said, in circumstance where a suspension has been called for, I do see the merit of requesting that Council generate an interim report and post it to inform the entire community of the suspension and reason(s) for which it was suspended. That would be quite logical in the larger scheme of things. Anne, please correct me if I am wrong. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:58 AM To: 'KnobenW at telekom.de'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I would propose a third option: 3. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. [cid:149464117 at 13122012-022C]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 at LRLaw.com * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From: KnobenW at telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:49 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, from the list I did not understand a clear objection against sending the draft motion to the council with the option of withdrawing it if there can't be found SCI consensus. So I took this responsibility and did it to preserve this chance. I'd like to encourage all of us to continue working at a solution re the footnote. 2 suggestions are at the table: 1. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 1. Suspension is a STATEDtime interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council, subject to ICANN Board review in those cases where the Board has requested GNSO input. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 3. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. Please comment. I wonder what how to proceed if there will be no consensus found at thew time being. On the one hand I've got the impression that a majority would be satisfied with suggestion #1 but also open to find a solution which doesn't cause the need for another public comment period. In case of no consensus we could also - as we did with other items discussed at the SCI - report to the council where we are, that there has been a public comment period successfully finished, but there are still concerns which would prevent the SCI from consensus. The council may then decide how to deal with the (publicly commented) text. I would be thankful hearing your assessment on and under which conditions consensus could still be achieved. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2012 03:13 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I do not believe that this "negative response" mechanism is in accordance with the full consensus process. I also believe I spoke against this at the last reading. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: KnobenW at telekom.de [KnobenW at telekom.de] Received: Wednesday, 12 Dec 2012, 5:06am To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, per its charter, the SCI is expected to take decisions using a 'full consensus' process ("when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings"). Obviously it would be ideal if all members support a certain position. It would also be ideal if we find consensus today which is the deadline for motions before the next counciil meeting. But in order to reduce time pressure I could imagine the option to submit the draft motion today, noting that there are some issues that are still being discussed by the SCI which may result in withdrawal of the motion and agenda item if no agreement can be found. If there is no objection I'll do so accordingly at the end of the day. Thanks for this valuable discussion and for your understanding. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Julie Hedlund > To: Alain Berranger >, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Alain, One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change from the original footnote text. The previous suggestion - adding the word "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public Comment Forum on new language. As discussed during last Thursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented in the public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that the revised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days. Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longer period, perhaps 30 days. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Alain Berranger > Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, and priority... Alain On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, > wrote: We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, just bring it to the point. First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should be agreed. Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the concern? Or do others have? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't think we are unanimous. 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still concerned. avri On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, > > wrote: > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > wrote: > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position where it >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not >> answered our questions." This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >> 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) 879-4725AAikman at 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 at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >> Konings >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri >>> Doria >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >>> Specifically: >>> >>> " >>> March 212 20120314-1 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >>> Whois >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> " >>> November 2012 20121017-2 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the >>> New gTLD Program. >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >>> >>> " >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >>> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >>> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >>> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >>> No vote is required for such action. >>> " >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>>> Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one >>>> their preemptory decisions. >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >>>> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, > > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anne and all, >>>>> >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation >>>> that the council should follow a related board request. I think >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debate following the >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. >>>>> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>>> Julie? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>>> says, >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an >>>> answer >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >>>>> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and >>>>> the >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>>> "oasis" >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >>>>> at >>>> the >>>> GNSO level. >>>>> >>>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named >>>>> within >>>> the message. >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply >>>>> e-mail and delete the >>>> original message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>>> comment >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>>> >>>>> jse >>>>> >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>>> Inc. >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund > >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >; >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>>> deleted? >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> From: , Anne > >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>> >, >>>> Julie Hedlund > >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>>> If >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would >>>> not apply. >>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed >>>> Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>> clarification to >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold >>>> all >>>> caps: >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change >>>> in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that >>>>> the >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>>> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is >>>>> accepted >>>> by the >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>>> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >>>>> the >>>> SCI >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of >>>> Wednesday, >>>> 12 >>>> December.** >>>>> >>>>> With best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of >>>> termination orsuspension. >>>> The >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>>> support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>>> initiation >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; >>>> or warranting a suspension; or >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack >>>> of volunteer participation. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>>>> termination, >>>> the >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>>>> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > PDP.docx> -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l'usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l'employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu'il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From KnobenW at telekom.de Thu Dec 13 20:48:19 2012 From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:48:19 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI chair election Message-ID: All, today at 23:59 UTC the election period for the new SCI chair is ending. I hope all of you could take part in the election. I suggest to hand over officially at the beginning of the next SCI meeting on 20 December. The same day shall be a council meeting, and I'll inform the council about the change. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Glen at icann.org Fri Dec 14 10:07:56 2012 From: Glen at icann.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Glen_de_Saint_G=E9ry?=) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 02:07:56 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI chair election results Message-ID: Dear All, The voting period for the new SCI chair closed on Thursday, 13 December 2012 at 23:59 UTC. The results are: Eleven (11) votes for Ron Andruff Four (4) votes for Avri Doria According to the procedure set out, the candidate with a simple majority of the votes is elected chair. The other candidate is elected vice-chair. Fourteen (14) Ballots were received from the 15 SCI members eligible to vote and one vote was registered by simple email message. Anne Aikman-Scalese Ron Andruff Alain Berranger James Bladel Avri Doria J. Scott Evans Ray Fassett Angie Graves Tony Holmes Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Thomas Rickert Jonathan Robinson Jennifer Standiford Jennifer Wolfe Mary Wong Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen De : owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] De la part de KnobenW at telekom.de Envoy? : jeudi 13 d?cembre 2012 21:48 ? : gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Objet : [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI chair election All, today at 23:59 UTC the election period for the new SCI chair is ending. I hope all of you could take part in the election. I suggest to hand over officially at the beginning of the next SCI meeting on 20 December. The same day shall be a council meeting, and I'll inform the council about the change. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Fri Dec 14 10:29:47 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:29:47 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI chair election results In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <59799961-F8A5-4CB9-A9EA-1C39E75CD4D1@acm.org> Hi, Congratulations Ron. I look forward to working with you as vice-chair. avri On 14 Dec 2012, at 11:07, Glen de Saint G?ry wrote: > > Dear All, > > The voting period for the new SCI chair closed on Thursday, 13 December 2012 at 23:59 UTC. > The results are: > > Eleven (11) votes for Ron Andruff > Four (4) votes for Avri Doria > > According to the procedure set out, the candidate with a simple majority of the votes is elected chair. > The other candidate is elected vice-chair. > > Fourteen (14) Ballots were received from the 15 SCI members eligible to vote and one vote was registered by simple email message. > > Anne Aikman-Scalese > Ron Andruff > Alain Berranger > James Bladel > Avri Doria > J. Scott Evans > Ray Fassett > Angie Graves > Tony Holmes > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Thomas Rickert > Jonathan Robinson > Jennifer Standiford > Jennifer Wolfe > Mary Wong > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > Thank you. > Kind regards, > > Glen > > > De : owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] De la part deKnobenW at telekom.de > Envoy? : jeudi 13 d?cembre 2012 21:48 > ? : gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Objet : [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI chair election > > All, > > today at 23:59 UTC the election period for the new SCI chair is ending. I hope all of you could take part in the election. > > I suggest to hand over officially at the beginning of the next SCI meeting on 20 December. The same day shall be a council meeting, and I'll inform the council about the change. > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > From KnobenW at telekom.de Fri Dec 14 11:11:05 2012 From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 12:11:05 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: SCI chair election results In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congratulations Ron for your election as chair and Avri as vice chair. I'm convinced that the SCI tasks shall be in best hands with both of you. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Glen de Saint G?ry Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Dezember 2012 11:08 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI chair election results Dear All, The voting period for the new SCI chair closed on Thursday, 13 December 2012 at 23:59 UTC. The results are: Eleven (11) votes for Ron Andruff Four (4) votes for Avri Doria According to the procedure set out, the candidate with a simple majority of the votes is elected chair. The other candidate is elected vice-chair. Fourteen (14) Ballots were received from the 15 SCI members eligible to vote and one vote was registered by simple email message. Anne Aikman-Scalese Ron Andruff Alain Berranger James Bladel Avri Doria J. Scott Evans Ray Fassett Angie Graves Tony Holmes Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Thomas Rickert Jonathan Robinson Jennifer Standiford Jennifer Wolfe Mary Wong Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen De : owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] De la part de KnobenW at telekom.de Envoy? : jeudi 13 d?cembre 2012 21:48 ? : gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Objet : [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI chair election All, today at 23:59 UTC the election period for the new SCI chair is ending. I hope all of you could take part in the election. I suggest to hand over officially at the beginning of the next SCI meeting on 20 December. The same day shall be a council meeting, and I'll inform the council about the change. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Fri Dec 14 16:57:31 2012 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:57:31 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI chair election results In-Reply-To: <59799961-F8A5-4CB9-A9EA-1C39E75CD4D1@acm.org> Message-ID: <0FE945A347374907A0CAE95437C6A569@ron> Thanks to all for participating in the election. I'd also like to thank Wolf-Ulrich and Avri for their excellent leadership of the SCI since its inception. I'm grateful to have Avri's experience as Vice Chair in continuing the work of the SCI. I look forward to 'seeing' everyone on our December 20th SCI call. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 5:30 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI chair election results Hi, Congratulations Ron. I look forward to working with you as vice-chair. avri On 14 Dec 2012, at 11:07, Glen de Saint G?ry wrote: > > Dear All, > > The voting period for the new SCI chair closed on Thursday, 13 December 2012 at 23:59 UTC. > The results are: > > Eleven (11) votes for Ron Andruff > Four (4) votes for Avri Doria > > According to the procedure set out, the candidate with a simple majority of the votes is elected chair. > The other candidate is elected vice-chair. > > Fourteen (14) Ballots were received from the 15 SCI members eligible to vote and one vote was registered by simple email message. > > Anne Aikman-Scalese > Ron Andruff > Alain Berranger > James Bladel > Avri Doria > J. Scott Evans > Ray Fassett > Angie Graves > Tony Holmes > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Thomas Rickert > Jonathan Robinson > Jennifer Standiford > Jennifer Wolfe > Mary Wong > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > Thank you. > Kind regards, > > Glen > > > De : owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] De la part deKnobenW at telekom.de > Envoy? : jeudi 13 d?cembre 2012 21:48 > ? : gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Objet : [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI chair election > > All, > > today at 23:59 UTC the election period for the new SCI chair is ending. I hope all of you could take part in the election. > > I suggest to hand over officially at the beginning of the next SCI meeting on 20 December. The same day shall be a council meeting, and I'll inform the council about the change. > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > From alain.berranger at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 17:25:59 2012 From: alain.berranger at gmail.com (Alain Berranger) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 12:25:59 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI chair election results In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Kudos to Ron and Avri! Thanks for your volunteer time! Best, Alain On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 5:07 AM, Glen de Saint G?ry wrote: > ** ** > > Dear All,**** > > ** ** > > The voting period for the new SCI chair closed on Thursday, 13 December > 2012 at 23:59 UTC.**** > > The results are:**** > > ** ** > > Eleven (11) votes for Ron Andruff**** > > Four (4) votes for Avri Doria**** > > ** ** > > According to the procedure set out, the candidate with a simple majority > of the votes is elected chair.**** > > The other candidate is elected vice-chair.**** > > ** ** > > Fourteen (14) Ballots were received from the 15 SCI members eligible to > vote and one vote was registered by simple email message.**** > > ** ** > > Anne Aikman-Scalese**** > > Ron Andruff**** > > Alain Berranger > James Bladel**** > > Avri Doria**** > > J. Scott Evans**** > > Ray Fassett**** > > Angie Graves**** > > Tony Holmes > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben**** > > Thomas Rickert**** > > Jonathan Robinson**** > > Jennifer Standiford**** > > Jennifer Wolfe**** > > Mary Wong**** > > ** ** > > Please let me know if you have any questions.**** > > Thank you.**** > > Kind regards,**** > > ** ** > > Glen**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *De :* owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [ > mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] > *De la part de* KnobenW at telekom.de > *Envoy? :* jeudi 13 d?cembre 2012 21:48 > *? :* gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > *Objet :* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI chair election**** > > ** ** > > All,**** > > **** > > today at 23:59 UTC the election period for the new SCI chair is ending. I > hope all of you could take part in the election.**** > > **** > > I suggest to hand over officially at the beginning of the next SCI meeting > on 20 December. The same day shall be a council meeting, and I'll inform > the council about the change.**** > > **** > > Best regards**** > > Wolf-Ulrich **** > > **** > -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l?employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu?il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Fri Dec 14 18:48:36 2012 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:48:36 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER: ACTION REQUESTED: Draft Survey for GNSO Working Groups In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Below is a link to a Draft Survey for GNSO Working Groups. As we discussed in our last meeting it would be helpful if the SCI members could read the Working Group Guidelines (see link also below), take the survey, and provide comments on how the survey can be improved. **SCI members are requested to complete these actions and provide any comments by COB Wednesday, 19 December so that I may provide the results for our meeting on 20 December.** Link to the Working Group Guidelines: http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf Link to the Guidelines Summary: http://gnso.icann.org/council/summary-gnso-wg-guidelines-06apr11-en.pdf Link to Draft Survey for GNSO Working Groups: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FFTCJPT Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Fri Dec 14 19:33:17 2012 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 19:33:17 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI chair election results In-Reply-To: <59799961-F8A5-4CB9-A9EA-1C39E75CD4D1@acm.org> References: <59799961-F8A5-4CB9-A9EA-1C39E75CD4D1@acm.org> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD960240983@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Congratulations Ron and Avri! Many thanks to both of you for your willingness to listen to new voices in ICANN. I am super impressed by both of you with your historical knowledge of the organization and by your working style! 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 3:30 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI chair election results Hi, Congratulations Ron. I look forward to working with you as vice-chair. avri On 14 Dec 2012, at 11:07, Glen de Saint G?ry wrote: > > Dear All, > > The voting period for the new SCI chair closed on Thursday, 13 December 2012 at 23:59 UTC. > The results are: > > Eleven (11) votes for Ron Andruff > Four (4) votes for Avri Doria > > According to the procedure set out, the candidate with a simple majority of the votes is elected chair. > The other candidate is elected vice-chair. > > Fourteen (14) Ballots were received from the 15 SCI members eligible to vote and one vote was registered by simple email message. > > Anne Aikman-Scalese > Ron Andruff > Alain Berranger > James Bladel > Avri Doria > J. Scott Evans > Ray Fassett > Angie Graves > Tony Holmes > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Thomas Rickert > Jonathan Robinson > Jennifer Standiford > Jennifer Wolfe > Mary Wong > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > Thank you. > Kind regards, > > Glen > > > De : owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] De la part > deKnobenW at telekom.de Envoy? : jeudi 13 d?cembre 2012 21:48 ? : > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Objet : [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI > chair election > > All, > > today at 23:59 UTC the election period for the new SCI chair is ending. I hope all of you could take part in the election. > > I suggest to hand over officially at the beginning of the next SCI meeting on 20 December. The same day shall be a council meeting, and I'll inform the council about the change. > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > ---------------------- 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 From AAikman at lrlaw.com Fri Dec 14 19:43:16 2012 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 19:43:16 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: SCI chair election results In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD960240A2C@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Wolf-Ulrich, Many thanks for your great service as outgoing Chair. Despite our disagreement over these last few days, I have certainly felt that you have done an excellent job of facilitating our meetings and have enjoyed watching you work! Best regards, Anne [cid:351494119 at 14122012-31A1]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 at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW at telekom.de Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 4:11 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: SCI chair election results Congratulations Ron for your election as chair and Avri as vice chair. I'm convinced that the SCI tasks shall be in best hands with both of you. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Glen de Saint G?ry Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Dezember 2012 11:08 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI chair election results Dear All, The voting period for the new SCI chair closed on Thursday, 13 December 2012 at 23:59 UTC. The results are: Eleven (11) votes for Ron Andruff Four (4) votes for Avri Doria According to the procedure set out, the candidate with a simple majority of the votes is elected chair. The other candidate is elected vice-chair. Fourteen (14) Ballots were received from the 15 SCI members eligible to vote and one vote was registered by simple email message. Anne Aikman-Scalese Ron Andruff Alain Berranger James Bladel Avri Doria J. Scott Evans Ray Fassett Angie Graves Tony Holmes Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Thomas Rickert Jonathan Robinson Jennifer Standiford Jennifer Wolfe Mary Wong Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen De : owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] De la part de KnobenW at telekom.de Envoy? : jeudi 13 d?cembre 2012 21:48 ? : gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Objet : [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI chair election All, today at 23:59 UTC the election period for the new SCI chair is ending. I hope all of you could take part in the election. I suggest to hand over officially at the beginning of the next SCI meeting on 20 December. The same day shall be a council meeting, and I'll inform the council about the change. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Fri Dec 14 20:12:17 2012 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:12:17 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DD14458@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Dear all, Recognizing that I am not yet installed as the Chair of the SCI until our next meeting this coming Thursday (Dec. 20th), yet being responsible for that meeting, (forgive me Wolf-Ulrich) I have two requests: (1) It would be very helpful if all SCI members would look at where we are with the ?Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote? and add your thoughts. The most recent exchanges on that thread are noted below. It appears that we have found a way forward, but this needs to be confirmed by all members. (2) I would also ask everyone to take a few minutes to complete the Survey that Julie sent around again today with her request that we all fill it out and note our experience and thoughts about amendments. She has asked for this to be done by Wednesday, Dec. 19th, so please do take a few minutes if you can spare them during this busy lead up to Christmas so that we can have a productive discussion. Thank you all in advance for attending to these two outstanding items. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. _____ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 12:44 PM To: 'Ron Andruff'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Ron, I would certainly support that notion in the interest of accountability and transparency. 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 at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. _____ From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Question for all re: an interim status report to the ICANN Board If I understand Anne?s line of thinking, the concern is about how to deal specifically with Board requested PDPs that are suspended. However, option 3 sounds like we are recommending that the Board receive an interim report whether they have initiated the PDP or not. This is a significant change and would only add more to the Board?s already full plate, in my view. That said, in circumstance where a suspension has been called for, I do see the merit of requesting that Council generate an interim report and post it to inform the entire community of the suspension and reason(s) for which it was suspended. That would be quite logical in the larger scheme of things. Anne, please correct me if I am wrong. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. _____ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:58 AM To: 'KnobenW at telekom.de'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I would propose a third option: 3. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 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 at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. _____ From: KnobenW at telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:49 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, from the list I did not understand a clear objection against sending the draft motion to the council with the option of withdrawing it if there can't be found SCI consensus. So I took this responsibility and did it to preserve this chance. I'd like to encourage all of us to continue working at a solution re the footnote. 2 suggestions are at the table: 1. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 2. Suspension is a STATEDtime interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council, subject to ICANN Board review in those cases where the Board has requested GNSO input. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 3. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. Please comment. I wonder what how to proceed if there will be no consensus found at thew time being. On the one hand I've got the impression that a majority would be satisfied with suggestion #1 but also open to find a solution which doesn't cause the need for another public comment period. In case of no consensus we could also - as we did with other items discussed at the SCI - report to the council where we are, that there has been a public comment period successfully finished, but there are still concerns which would prevent the SCI from consensus. The council may then decide how to deal with the (publicly commented) text. I would be thankful hearing your assessment on and under which conditions consensus could still be achieved. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2012 03:13 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I do not believe that this "negative response" mechanism is in accordance with the full consensus process. I also believe I spoke against this at the last reading. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: KnobenW at telekom.de [KnobenW at telekom.de] Received: Wednesday, 12 Dec 2012, 5:06am To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, per its charter, the SCI is expected to take decisions using a 'full consensus' process ("when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings"). Obviously it would be ideal if all members support a certain position. It would also be ideal if we find consensus today which is the deadline for motions before the next counciil meeting. But in order to reduce time pressure I could imagine the option to submit the draft motion today, noting that there are some issues that are still being discussed by the SCI which may result in withdrawal of the motion and agenda item if no agreement can be found. If there is no objection I'll do so accordingly at the end of the day. Thanks for this valuable discussion and for your understanding. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Julie Hedlund To: Alain Berranger , "KnobenW at telekom.de" Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" , "avri at acm.org" , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Alain, One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change from the original footnote text. The previous suggestion ? adding the word "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public Comment Forum on new language. As discussed during last Thursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented in the public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that the revised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days. Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longer period, perhaps 30 days. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Alain Berranger Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" , "avri at acm.org" , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, and priority... Alain On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, wrote: We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, just bring it to the point. First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should be agreed. Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the concern? Or do others have? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't think we are unanimous. 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still concerned. avri On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, wrote: > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" wrote: > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position where it >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not >> answered our questions." This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >> 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) 879-4725AAikman at 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 at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >> Konings >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri >>> Doria >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >>> Specifically: >>> >>> " >>> March 212 20120314-1 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >>> Whois >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> " >>> November 2012 20121017-2 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the >>> New gTLD Program. >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >>> >>> " >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >>> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >>> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >>> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >>> No vote is required for such action. >>> " >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>>> Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one >>>> their preemptory decisions. >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >>>> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anne and all, >>>>> >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation >>>> that the council should follow a related board request. I think >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debate following the >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. >>>>> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>>> Julie? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>>> says, >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an >>>> answer >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >>>>> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and >>>>> the >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>>> "oasis" >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >>>>> at >>>> the >>>> GNSO level. >>>>> >>>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named >>>>> within >>>> the message. >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply >>>>> e-mail and delete the >>>> original message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>>> comment >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>>> >>>>> jse >>>>> >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>>> Inc. >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" ; >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>>> deleted? >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> From: , Anne >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>> , >>>> Julie Hedlund >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>>> If >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would >>>> not apply. >>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed >>>> Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>> clarification to >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold >>>> all >>>> caps: >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change >>>> in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that >>>>> the >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>>> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is >>>>> accepted >>>> by the >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>>> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >>>>> the >>>> SCI >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of >>>> Wednesday, >>>> 12 >>>> December.** >>>>> >>>>> With best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of >>>> termination orsuspension. >>>> The >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>>> support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>>> initiation >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; >>>> or warranting a suspension; or >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack >>>> of volunteer participation. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>>>> termination, >>>> the >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>>>> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > PDP.docx> -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l?employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu?il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Sat Dec 15 02:22:35 2012 From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 21:22:35 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Message-ID: <50CB988B0200005B0009DA13@smtp.law.unh.edu> I support the concept of an interim report to be put out to the community by the GNSO Council upon its suspension of a PDP; however, I'd like to separate out our actual recommendation (which is to clarify what and when there is considered to be a suspension of a PDP) with our opinion as to either the GNSO Council's relationship with/reaction to Board-directed PDPs or as to appropriate action by the Council in voting for a suspension. I'd therefore suggest a slight modification to our Option 3 - take the language/mention of an interim report out of the sentence containing our recommendation, and either add a new sentence following that, or create an additional, related recommendation, stating that "The SCI recommends that, in cases of suspension of a Board-directed PDP, the GNSO Council issues an interim report stating the reasons for such suspension to the community." Or something along those lines. 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 at 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 >>> "Ron Andruff" 12/14/12 3:13 PM >>> Dear all, Recognizing that I am not yet installed asthe Chair of the SCI until our next meeting this coming Thursday (Dec. 20th),yet being responsible for that meeting, (forgive me Wolf-Ulrich) I have tworequests: (1) It would be very helpful if all SCImembers would look at where we are with the ?Suspending a PDP--ProposedRevised Footnote? and add your thoughts. The most recent exchanges onthat thread are noted below. It appears that we have found a way forward, butthis needs to be confirmed by all members. (2) I would also ask everyone to take afew minutes to complete the Survey that Julie sent around again today with herrequest that we all fill it out and note our experience and thoughts aboutamendments. She has asked for this to be done by Wednesday, Dec. 19th,so please do take a few minutes if you can spare them during this busy lead upto Christmas so that we can have a productive discussion. Thank you all in advance for attending tothese two outstanding items. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, December 13, 201212:44 PM To: 'Ron Andruff';gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE:[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Ron, I would certainly support that notionin the interest of accountability and transparency. 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 at LRLaw.com* www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing thise-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged andconfidential 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 originalmessage. From: RonAndruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 201210:39 AM To:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Subject: RE:[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Question for all re: an interim status report to the ICANN Board If I understand Anne?s line ofthinking, the concern is about how to deal specifically with Board requestedPDPs that are suspended. However, option 3 sounds like we arerecommending that the Board receive an interim report whether they haveinitiated the PDP or not. This is a significant change and would only addmore to the Board?s already full plate, in my view. That said, in circumstance where asuspension has been called for, I do see the merit of requesting that Councilgenerate an interim report and post it to inform the entire communityof the suspension and reason(s) for which it was suspended. That would bequite logical in the larger scheme of things. Anne, please correct me if I am wrong. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, December 13, 201210:58 AM To: 'KnobenW at telekom.de'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE:[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I would propose a third option: 3. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there isa temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is notconsidered a suspension. 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 at LRLaw.com* www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printingthis e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged andconfidential 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 originalmessage. From: KnobenW at telekom.de[mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 20128:49 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne;gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: AW:[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, from the list I did not understand a clearobjection against sending the draft motion to the council with the option ofwithdrawing it if there can't be found SCI consensus. So I took thisresponsibility and did it to preserve this chance. I'd like to encourage all of us tocontinue working at a solution re the footnote. 2 suggestions are at the table: 1. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is atemporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decisionof the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones orschedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 1. Suspensionis a STATEDtime interval during which there is a temporary cessation of thePDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council, subject to ICANN Boardreview in those cases where the Board has requested GNSO input. A mere change inmilestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 3. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there isa temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is notconsidered a suspension. Please comment. I wonder what how to proceed if therewill be no consensus found at thew time being. On the one hand I've got theimpression that a majority would be satisfied with suggestion #1 but also opento find a solution which doesn't cause the need for another public commentperiod. In case of no consensus we could also -as we did with other items discussed at the SCI - report to the councilwhere we are, that there has been a public comment period successfullyfinished, but there are still concerns which would prevent the SCI fromconsensus. The council may then decide how to deal with the (publiclycommented) text. I would be thankful hearing yourassessment on and under which conditions consensus could still be achieved. Bestregards Wolf-Ulrich Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Dezember2012 03:13 An:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: RE:[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Ido not believe that this "negative response" mechanism is inaccordance with the full consensus process. I also believe I spoke against thisat the last reading. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: KnobenW at telekom.de[KnobenW at telekom.de] Received: Wednesday, 12 Dec 2012,5:06am To:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc]Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, per its charter, the SCI is expected totake decisions using a 'full consensus' process ("when no one in the groupspeaks against the recommendation in its last readings"). Obviously it would be ideal if allmembers support a certain position. It would also be ideal if we findconsensus today which is the deadline for motions before the next counciilmeeting. But in order to reduce time pressure I could imagine the option tosubmit the draft motion today, noting that there are some issues that arestill being discussed by the SCI which may result in withdrawal of the motionand agenda item if no agreement can be found. If there is no objectionI'll do so accordingly at the end of the day. Thanks for this valuable discussion andfor your understanding. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Julie Hedlund To: Alain Berranger ,"KnobenW at telekom.de" Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" , "avri at acm.org" , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--ProposedRevised Footnote Alain, Oneconsideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change fromthe original footnote text. The previous suggestion * adding theword "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- wasdeemed by the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us toopen a Public Comment Forum on new language. As discussed during lastThursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented inthe public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that therevised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days. Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longerperiod, perhaps 30 days. Withbest regards, Julie JulieHedlund, Policy Director From:Alain Berranger Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" , "avri at acm.org" , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--ProposedRevised Footnote Canwe simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chaircan clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, andpriority... Alain OnTue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, wrote: We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, justbring it to the point. First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should beagreed. Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate theconcern? Or do others have? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending aPDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't thinkwe are unanimous. 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 at 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 originalmessage. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--ProposedRevised Footnote Hi, Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was stillconcerned. avri On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, wrote: > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote(redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec councilmeeting. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example theVertical Integration PDP: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" wrote: > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Boardcalls >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that thenresults in >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I thinkthere >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" orfor an >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position whereit >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and hasnot >> answered our questions." This is particularlyunsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >> 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)879-4725AAikman at LRLaw.com . >> www.LewisandRoca.com/AikmanP 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 thiscommunication >> was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete >> the original message. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]On Behalf Of Marika >> Konings >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provideinformation >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion sothat it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]Im Auftrag von Avri >>> Doria >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Boardasked for >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council toinitiate the PDP. >>> Specifically: >>> >>> " >>> March 212 20120314-1 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on'thick' >>> Whois >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick'Whois >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> " >>> November 2012 20121017-2 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in allGTLDs. >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the >>> New gTLD Program. >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >>> >>> " >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >>> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report byinstructing >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the processoutlined the PDP Manual. >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope,timing, >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >>> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >>> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, theCouncil, >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate aPDP. >>> No vote is required for such action. >>> " >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the currentwhois PDP >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org];gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role isto commit >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom upprocess into >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history ofthe Board's >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in anever-maturing ICANN >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform toICANN's basic >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]On Behalf Of Avri >>>> Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-councilever >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, ormake one >>>> their preemptory decisions. >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP- >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issueat this >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue fromthe >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-councildecsions, even >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >>>> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anne and all, >>>>> >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule acouncil >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing anexpectation >>>> that the council should follow a related board request.I think >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debatefollowing the >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. >>>>> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnoteprovided by >>>> Julie? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]Im Auftrag von >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW:Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that ifthe ICANN Board >>>> says, >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because weneed an >>>> answer >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that iswhat will happen? >>>>> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't workeffectively and >>>>> the >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), thenFadi's >>>> "oasis" >>>> announced in Dubaibecomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question willcome up >>>>> at >>>> the >>>> GNSO level. >>>>> >>>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of CounselLewis and Roca LLP >>>>> . Suite 700 One South Church Avenue . Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>>> Tel (520)629-4428 . Fax (520)879-4725 AAikman at LRLaw.com . >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing thise-mail. >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entitynamed >>>>> within >>>> the message. >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intendedrecipient, or >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intendedrecipient, you >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination,distribution >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. Ifthis >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us byreply >>>>> e-mail and delete the >>>> original message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW:Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this requirefurther public >>>> comment >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>>> >>>>> jse >>>>> >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains ?right - Yahoo! >>>> Inc. >>>> - 408.349.1385- jscottevans at yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" ; >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW:Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "untilfurther notice" to be >>>> deleted? >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during whichthere is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change inmilestones or >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered asuspension." >>>>> >>>>> From: , Anne >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>> , >>>> Julie Hedlund >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW:Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and"until further notice"? >>>> If >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "untilfurther notice" would >>>> not apply. >>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed >>>> Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>> clarification to >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, onSuspending a PDP. >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change inbold >>>> all >>>> caps: >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during whichthere is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. Amere change >>>> in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered asuspension." >>>>> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below sothat >>>>> the >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>>> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is >>>>> accepted >>>> by the >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>>> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December sothat if >>>>> the >>>> SCI >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of >>>> Wednesday, >>>> 12 >>>> December.** >>>>> >>>>> With best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP priorto the >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upona >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favourof >>>> termination orsuspension. >>>> The >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelesslydeadlocked and unable to >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either thestrong >>>> support or a consensus of its members despitesignificant time and >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events haveoccurred since the >>>> initiation >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longernecessary; >>>> or warranting a suspension; or >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despiteseveral calls for >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantlyimpaired >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations dueto lack >>>> of volunteer participation. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>>>> termination, >>>> the >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum firstprior >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (asdescribed above). >>>>> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during whichthere is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A merechange in >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered asuspension. >>>>> >>>>> For more information about Lewis and RocaLLP, 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 theindividual or >>>> entity to >>>> which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is notthe >>>> intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsiblefor >>>> delivering the message to the intended recipient, youare hereby >>>> notified that any dissemination, distribution or copyingof this >>>> message is strictly prohibited. If you have receivedthis >>>> 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 Circular230, we >>>>> advise >>>> you >>>> that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advicewas not >>>> intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used,by any >>>> taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that maybe imposed >>>> on the taxpayer. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > PDP.docx> -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member,Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence,Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer,Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NArepresentative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVISDE CONFIDENTIALIT? Cecourriel est confidentiel et est ? l?usage exclusif du destinataireci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre ledestinataire, ou l?employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettreau destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu?il lui est strictementinterdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire,en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce documentvous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votrecoop?ration. CONFIDENTIALITYMESSAGE Thise-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of theaddressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other thanthe addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding itto the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify orreproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addresseecannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notifyus immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you foryour cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Sat Dec 15 17:58:45 2012 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 17:58:45 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: <50CB988B0200005B0009DA13@smtp.law.unh.edu> References: <50CB988B0200005B0009DA13@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD960245E5E@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Just a minor note that at this point we were not limiting the interim status report to any "Board-directed PDP". I think the simplest add would be to require an interim status report to the GNSO Council, e.g. "all activities (other than an interim status report to the Council) will halt." Then SCI could recommend that the interim status report be published to the entire community. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] Received: Friday, 14 Dec 2012, 7:22pm To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com] Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I support the concept of an interim report to be put out to the community by the GNSO Council upon its suspension of a PDP; however, I'd like to separate out our actual recommendation (which is to clarify what and when there is considered to be a suspension of a PDP) with our opinion as to either the GNSO Council's relationship with/reaction to Board-directed PDPs or as to appropriate action by the Council in voting for a suspension. I'd therefore suggest a slight modification to our Option 3 - take the language/mention of an interim report out of the sentence containing our recommendation, and either add a new sentence following that, or create an additional, related recommendation, stating that "The SCI recommends that, in cases of suspension of a Board-directed PDP, the GNSO Council issues an interim report stating the reasons for such suspension to the community." Or something along those lines. 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 at 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 >>> "Ron Andruff" 12/14/12 3:13 PM >>> Dear all, Recognizing that I am not yet installed as the Chair of the SCI until our next meeting this coming Thursday (Dec. 20th), yet being responsible for that meeting, (forgive me Wolf-Ulrich) I have two requests: (1) It would be very helpful if all SCI members would look at where we are with the ?Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote? and add your thoughts. The most recent exchanges on that thread are noted below. It appears that we have found a way forward, but this needs to be confirmed by all members. (2) I would also ask everyone to take a few minutes to complete the Survey that Julie sent around again today with her request that we all fill it out and note our experience and thoughts about amendments. She has asked for this to be done by Wednesday, Dec. 19th, so please do take a few minutes if you can spare them during this busy lead up to Christmas so that we can have a productive discussion. Thank you all in advance for attending to these two outstanding items. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 12:44 PM To: 'Ron Andruff'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Ron, I would certainly support that notion in the interest of accountability and transparency. [%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20]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 at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Question for all re: an interim status report to the ICANN Board If I understand Anne?s line of thinking, the concern is about how to deal specifically with Board requested PDPs that are suspended. However, option 3 sounds like we are recommending that the Board receive an interim report whether they have initiated the PDP or not. This is a significant change and would only add more to the Board?s already full plate, in my view. That said, in circumstance where a suspension has been called for, I do see the merit of requesting that Council generate an interim report and post it to inform the entire community of the suspension and reason(s) for which it was suspended. That would be quite logical in the larger scheme of things. Anne, please correct me if I am wrong. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:58 AM To: 'KnobenW at telekom.de'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I would propose a third option: 3. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. [378205215 at 13122012-3268]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 at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From: KnobenW at telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:49 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, from the list I did not understand a clear objection against sending the draft motion to the council with the option of withdrawing it if there can't be found SCI consensus. So I took this responsibility and did it to preserve this chance. I'd like to encourage all of us to continue working at a solution re the footnote. 2 suggestions are at the table: 1. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 1. Suspension is a STATEDtime interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council, subject to ICANN Board review in those cases where the Board has requested GNSO input. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 3. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. Please comment. I wonder what how to proceed if there will be no consensus found at thew time being. On the one hand I've got the impression that a majority would be satisfied with suggestion #1 but also open to find a solution which doesn't cause the need for another public comment period. In case of no consensus we could also - as we did with other items discussed at the SCI - report to the council where we are, that there has been a public comment period successfully finished, but there are still concerns which would prevent the SCI from consensus. The council may then decide how to deal with the (publicly commented) text. I would be thankful hearing your assessment on and under which conditions consensus could still be achieved. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2012 03:13 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I do not believe that this "negative response" mechanism is in accordance with the full consensus process. I also believe I spoke against this at the last reading. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: KnobenW at telekom.de [KnobenW at telekom.de] Received: Wednesday, 12 Dec 2012, 5:06am To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, per its charter, the SCI is expected to take decisions using a 'full consensus' process ("when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings"). Obviously it would be ideal if all members support a certain position. It would also be ideal if we find consensus today which is the deadline for motions before the next counciil meeting. But in order to reduce time pressure I could imagine the option to submit the draft motion today, noting that there are some issues that are still being discussed by the SCI which may result in withdrawal of the motion and agenda item if no agreement can be found. If there is no objection I'll do so accordingly at the end of the day. Thanks for this valuable discussion and for your understanding. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Julie Hedlund > To: Alain Berranger >, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Alain, One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change from the original footnote text. The previous suggestion ? adding the word "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public Comment Forum on new language. As discussed during last Thursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented in the public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that the revised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days. Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longer period, perhaps 30 days. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Alain Berranger > Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, and priority... Alain On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, > wrote: We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, just bring it to the point. First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should be agreed. Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the concern? Or do others have? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't think we are unanimous. 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still concerned. avri On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, > > wrote: > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > wrote: > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position where it >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not >> answered our questions." This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >> 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) 879-4725AAikman at 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 at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >> Konings >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri >>> Doria >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >>> Specifically: >>> >>> " >>> March 212 20120314-1 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >>> Whois >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> " >>> November 2012 20121017-2 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the >>> New gTLD Program. >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >>> >>> " >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >>> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >>> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >>> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >>> No vote is required for such action. >>> " >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>>> Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one >>>> their preemptory decisions. >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >>>> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, > > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anne and all, >>>>> >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation >>>> that the council should follow a related board request. I think >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debate following the >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. >>>>> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>>> Julie? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>>> says, >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an >>>> answer >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >>>>> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and >>>>> the >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>>> "oasis" >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >>>>> at >>>> the >>>> GNSO level. >>>>> >>>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named >>>>> within >>>> the message. >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply >>>>> e-mail and delete the >>>> original message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>>> comment >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>>> >>>>> jse >>>>> >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>>> Inc. >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund > >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >; >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>>> deleted? >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> From: , Anne > >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>> >, >>>> Julie Hedlund > >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>>> If >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would >>>> not apply. >>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed >>>> Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>> clarification to >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold >>>> all >>>> caps: >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change >>>> in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that >>>>> the >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>>> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is >>>>> accepted >>>> by the >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>>> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >>>>> the >>>> SCI >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of >>>> Wednesday, >>>> 12 >>>> December.** >>>>> >>>>> With best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of >>>> termination orsuspension. >>>> The >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>>> support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>>> initiation >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; >>>> or warranting a suspension; or >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack >>>> of volunteer participation. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>>>> termination, >>>> the >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>>>> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > PDP.docx> -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l?employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu?il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marika.konings at icann.org Sun Dec 16 09:10:31 2012 From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 01:10:31 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD960245E5E@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: All, it may be worth pointing out that for every PDP as well as non-PDP, there are regular status updates already provided. For example, the GNSO project list which is updated on a monthly basis (see http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf). Also, each project has their own page on the GNSO web-site which is updated with every milestone activity (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active-groups.htm). In addition, each resolution that is adopted by the GNSO Council contains the rationale for that decision in the 'whereas' clauses (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions). It should also be noted that an 'interim status report' is currently not defined in the PDP Manual (what would need to be in there, who is responsible for preparing it, would it need to be adopted by a vote of the GNSO Council?). Furthermore, in addition to the Board, ICANN Advisory Committees can also request Issue Reports, but they have not been considered in this conversation. As a result, I would really like to encourage the SCI to review this issue in a broader context (if/when/how should PDP status updates be provided to entities other than the GNSO Council during the lifespan of a PDP, taking into account all the different communication tools already in place) as part of the overall review of the PDP, instead of applying a bandaid here to a wound that has not even manifested itself. Best regards, Marika From: , Anne > Date: Saturday 15 December 2012 18:58 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, "randruff at rnapartners.com" >, "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Just a minor note that at this point we were not limiting the interim status report to any "Board-directed PDP". I think the simplest add would be to require an interim status report to the GNSO Council, e.g. "all activities (other than an interim status report to the Council) will halt." Then SCI could recommend that the interim status report be published to the entire community. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] Received: Friday, 14 Dec 2012, 7:22pm To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com] Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I support the concept of an interim report to be put out to the community by the GNSO Council upon its suspension of a PDP; however, I'd like to separate out our actual recommendation (which is to clarify what and when there is considered to be a suspension of a PDP) with our opinion as to either the GNSO Council's relationship with/reaction to Board-directed PDPs or as to appropriate action by the Council in voting for a suspension. I'd therefore suggest a slight modification to our Option 3 - take the language/mention of an interim report out of the sentence containing our recommendation, and either add a new sentence following that, or create an additional, related recommendation, stating that "The SCI recommends that, in cases of suspension of a Board-directed PDP, the GNSO Council issues an interim report stating the reasons for such suspension to the community." Or something along those lines. 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 at 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 >>> "Ron Andruff" 12/14/12 3:13 PM >>> Dear all, Recognizing that I am not yet installed as the Chair of the SCI until our next meeting this coming Thursday (Dec. 20th), yet being responsible for that meeting, (forgive me Wolf-Ulrich) I have two requests: (1) It would be very helpful if all SCI members would look at where we are with the ?Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote? and add your thoughts. The most recent exchanges on that thread are noted below. It appears that we have found a way forward, but this needs to be confirmed by all members. (2) I would also ask everyone to take a few minutes to complete the Survey that Julie sent around again today with her request that we all fill it out and note our experience and thoughts about amendments. She has asked for this to be done by Wednesday, Dec. 19th, so please do take a few minutes if you can spare them during this busy lead up to Christmas so that we can have a productive discussion. Thank you all in advance for attending to these two outstanding items. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 12:44 PM To: 'Ron Andruff'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Ron, I would certainly support that notion in the interest of accountability and transparency. [%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20]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 at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Question for all re: an interim status report to the ICANN Board If I understand Anne?s line of thinking, the concern is about how to deal specifically with Board requested PDPs that are suspended. However, option 3 sounds like we are recommending that the Board receive an interim report whether they have initiated the PDP or not. This is a significant change and would only add more to the Board?s already full plate, in my view. That said, in circumstance where a suspension has been called for, I do see the merit of requesting that Council generate an interim report and post it to inform the entire community of the suspension and reason(s) for which it was suspended. That would be quite logical in the larger scheme of things. Anne, please correct me if I am wrong. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:58 AM To: 'KnobenW at telekom.de'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I would propose a third option: 3. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. [378205215 at 13122012-3268]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 at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From: KnobenW at telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:49 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, from the list I did not understand a clear objection against sending the draft motion to the council with the option of withdrawing it if there can't be found SCI consensus. So I took this responsibility and did it to preserve this chance. I'd like to encourage all of us to continue working at a solution re the footnote. 2 suggestions are at the table: 1. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 1. Suspension is a STATEDtime interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council, subject to ICANN Board review in those cases where the Board has requested GNSO input. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 3. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. Please comment. I wonder what how to proceed if there will be no consensus found at thew time being. On the one hand I've got the impression that a majority would be satisfied with suggestion #1 but also open to find a solution which doesn't cause the need for another public comment period. In case of no consensus we could also - as we did with other items discussed at the SCI - report to the council where we are, that there has been a public comment period successfully finished, but there are still concerns which would prevent the SCI from consensus. The council may then decide how to deal with the (publicly commented) text. I would be thankful hearing your assessment on and under which conditions consensus could still be achieved. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2012 03:13 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I do not believe that this "negative response" mechanism is in accordance with the full consensus process. I also believe I spoke against this at the last reading. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: KnobenW at telekom.de [KnobenW at telekom.de] Received: Wednesday, 12 Dec 2012, 5:06am To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, per its charter, the SCI is expected to take decisions using a 'full consensus' process ("when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings"). Obviously it would be ideal if all members support a certain position. It would also be ideal if we find consensus today which is the deadline for motions before the next counciil meeting. But in order to reduce time pressure I could imagine the option to submit the draft motion today, noting that there are some issues that are still being discussed by the SCI which may result in withdrawal of the motion and agenda item if no agreement can be found. If there is no objection I'll do so accordingly at the end of the day. Thanks for this valuable discussion and for your understanding. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Julie Hedlund > To: Alain Berranger >, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Alain, One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change from the original footnote text. The previous suggestion ? adding the word "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public Comment Forum on new language. As discussed during last Thursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented in the public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that the revised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days. Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longer period, perhaps 30 days. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Alain Berranger > Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, and priority... Alain On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, > wrote: We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, just bring it to the point. First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should be agreed. Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the concern? Or do others have? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't think we are unanimous. 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still concerned. avri On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, > > wrote: > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > wrote: > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position where it >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not >> answered our questions." This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >> 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) 879-4725AAikman at 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 at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >> Konings >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri >>> Doria >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >>> Specifically: >>> >>> " >>> March 212 20120314-1 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >>> Whois >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> " >>> November 2012 20121017-2 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the >>> New gTLD Program. >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >>> >>> " >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >>> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >>> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >>> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >>> No vote is required for such action. >>> " >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>>> Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one >>>> their preemptory decisions. >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >>>> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, > > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anne and all, >>>>> >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation >>>> that the council should follow a related board request. I think >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debate following the >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. >>>>> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>>> Julie? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>>> says, >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an >>>> answer >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >>>>> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and >>>>> the >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>>> "oasis" >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >>>>> at >>>> the >>>> GNSO level. >>>>> >>>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named >>>>> within >>>> the message. >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply >>>>> e-mail and delete the >>>> original message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>>> comment >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>>> >>>>> jse >>>>> >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>>> Inc. >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund > >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >; >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>>> deleted? >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> From: , Anne > >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>> >, >>>> Julie Hedlund > >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>>> If >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would >>>> not apply. >>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed >>>> Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>> clarification to >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold >>>> all >>>> caps: >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change >>>> in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that >>>>> the >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>>> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is >>>>> accepted >>>> by the >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>>> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >>>>> the >>>> SCI >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of >>>> Wednesday, >>>> 12 >>>> December.** >>>>> >>>>> With best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of >>>> termination orsuspension. >>>> The >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>>> support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>>> initiation >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; >>>> or warranting a suspension; or >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack >>>> of volunteer participation. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>>>> termination, >>>> the >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>>>> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > PDP.docx> -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l?employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu?il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Sun Dec 16 13:27:34 2012 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 13:27:34 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD960245E5E@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com>, Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD960246935@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Marika, I see the point of broader considerations but think the analogy to a bandaid on an unmanifested wound is very poor. It's actually a bit more like putting on a helmet before riding a bike. See you Monday at the brunch and maybe we can talk further! Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Marika Konings [marika.konings at icann.org] Received: Sunday, 16 Dec 2012, 2:10am To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com]; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, it may be worth pointing out that for every PDP as well as non-PDP, there are regular status updates already provided. For example, the GNSO project list which is updated on a monthly basis (see http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf). Also, each project has their own page on the GNSO web-site which is updated with every milestone activity (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active-groups.htm). In addition, each resolution that is adopted by the GNSO Council contains the rationale for that decision in the 'whereas' clauses (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions). It should also be noted that an 'interim status report' is currently not defined in the PDP Manual (what would need to be in there, who is responsible for preparing it, would it need to be adopted by a vote of the GNSO Council?). Furthermore, in addition to the Board, ICANN Advisory Committees can also request Issue Reports, but they have not been considered in this conversation. As a result, I would really like to encourage the SCI to review this issue in a broader context (if/when/how should PDP status updates be provided to entities other than the GNSO Council during the lifespan of a PDP, taking into account all the different communication tools already in place) as part of the overall review of the PDP, instead of applying a bandaid here to a wound that has not even manifested itself. Best regards, Marika From: , Anne > Date: Saturday 15 December 2012 18:58 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, "randruff at rnapartners.com" >, "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Just a minor note that at this point we were not limiting the interim status report to any "Board-directed PDP". I think the simplest add would be to require an interim status report to the GNSO Council, e.g. "all activities (other than an interim status report to the Council) will halt." Then SCI could recommend that the interim status report be published to the entire community. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] Received: Friday, 14 Dec 2012, 7:22pm To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com] Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I support the concept of an interim report to be put out to the community by the GNSO Council upon its suspension of a PDP; however, I'd like to separate out our actual recommendation (which is to clarify what and when there is considered to be a suspension of a PDP) with our opinion as to either the GNSO Council's relationship with/reaction to Board-directed PDPs or as to appropriate action by the Council in voting for a suspension. I'd therefore suggest a slight modification to our Option 3 - take the language/mention of an interim report out of the sentence containing our recommendation, and either add a new sentence following that, or create an additional, related recommendation, stating that "The SCI recommends that, in cases of suspension of a Board-directed PDP, the GNSO Council issues an interim report stating the reasons for such suspension to the community." Or something along those lines. 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 at 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 >>> "Ron Andruff" 12/14/12 3:13 PM >>> Dear all, Recognizing that I am not yet installed as the Chair of the SCI until our next meeting this coming Thursday (Dec. 20th), yet being responsible for that meeting, (forgive me Wolf-Ulrich) I have two requests: (1) It would be very helpful if all SCI members would look at where we are with the ?Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote? and add your thoughts. The most recent exchanges on that thread are noted below. It appears that we have found a way forward, but this needs to be confirmed by all members. (2) I would also ask everyone to take a few minutes to complete the Survey that Julie sent around again today with her request that we all fill it out and note our experience and thoughts about amendments. She has asked for this to be done by Wednesday, Dec. 19th, so please do take a few minutes if you can spare them during this busy lead up to Christmas so that we can have a productive discussion. Thank you all in advance for attending to these two outstanding items. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 12:44 PM To: 'Ron Andruff'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Ron, I would certainly support that notion in the interest of accountability and transparency. [%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20]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 at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Question for all re: an interim status report to the ICANN Board If I understand Anne?s line of thinking, the concern is about how to deal specifically with Board requested PDPs that are suspended. However, option 3 sounds like we are recommending that the Board receive an interim report whether they have initiated the PDP or not. This is a significant change and would only add more to the Board?s already full plate, in my view. That said, in circumstance where a suspension has been called for, I do see the merit of requesting that Council generate an interim report and post it to inform the entire community of the suspension and reason(s) for which it was suspended. That would be quite logical in the larger scheme of things. Anne, please correct me if I am wrong. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:58 AM To: 'KnobenW at telekom.de'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I would propose a third option: 3. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. [378205215 at 13122012-3268]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 at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From: KnobenW at telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:49 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, from the list I did not understand a clear objection against sending the draft motion to the council with the option of withdrawing it if there can't be found SCI consensus. So I took this responsibility and did it to preserve this chance. I'd like to encourage all of us to continue working at a solution re the footnote. 2 suggestions are at the table: 1. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 1. Suspension is a STATEDtime interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council, subject to ICANN Board review in those cases where the Board has requested GNSO input. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 3. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. Please comment. I wonder what how to proceed if there will be no consensus found at thew time being. On the one hand I've got the impression that a majority would be satisfied with suggestion #1 but also open to find a solution which doesn't cause the need for another public comment period. In case of no consensus we could also - as we did with other items discussed at the SCI - report to the council where we are, that there has been a public comment period successfully finished, but there are still concerns which would prevent the SCI from consensus. The council may then decide how to deal with the (publicly commented) text. I would be thankful hearing your assessment on and under which conditions consensus could still be achieved. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2012 03:13 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I do not believe that this "negative response" mechanism is in accordance with the full consensus process. I also believe I spoke against this at the last reading. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: KnobenW at telekom.de [KnobenW at telekom.de] Received: Wednesday, 12 Dec 2012, 5:06am To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, per its charter, the SCI is expected to take decisions using a 'full consensus' process ("when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings"). Obviously it would be ideal if all members support a certain position. It would also be ideal if we find consensus today which is the deadline for motions before the next counciil meeting. But in order to reduce time pressure I could imagine the option to submit the draft motion today, noting that there are some issues that are still being discussed by the SCI which may result in withdrawal of the motion and agenda item if no agreement can be found. If there is no objection I'll do so accordingly at the end of the day. Thanks for this valuable discussion and for your understanding. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Julie Hedlund > To: Alain Berranger >, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Alain, One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change from the original footnote text. The previous suggestion ? adding the word "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public Comment Forum on new language. As discussed during last Thursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented in the public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that the revised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days. Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longer period, perhaps 30 days. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Alain Berranger > Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, and priority... Alain On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, > wrote: We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, just bring it to the point. First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should be agreed. Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the concern? Or do others have? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't think we are unanimous. 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still concerned. avri On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, > > wrote: > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > wrote: > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position where it >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not >> answered our questions." This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >> 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) 879-4725AAikman at 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 at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >> Konings >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri >>> Doria >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >>> Specifically: >>> >>> " >>> March 212 20120314-1 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >>> Whois >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> " >>> November 2012 20121017-2 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the >>> New gTLD Program. >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >>> >>> " >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >>> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >>> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >>> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >>> No vote is required for such action. >>> " >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>>> Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one >>>> their preemptory decisions. >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >>>> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, > > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anne and all, >>>>> >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation >>>> that the council should follow a related board request. I think >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debate following the >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. >>>>> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>>> Julie? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>>> says, >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an >>>> answer >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >>>>> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and >>>>> the >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>>> "oasis" >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >>>>> at >>>> the >>>> GNSO level. >>>>> >>>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named >>>>> within >>>> the message. >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply >>>>> e-mail and delete the >>>> original message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>>> comment >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>>> >>>>> jse >>>>> >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>>> Inc. >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund > >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >; >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>>> deleted? >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> From: , Anne > >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>> >, >>>> Julie Hedlund > >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>>> If >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would >>>> not apply. >>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed >>>> Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>> clarification to >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold >>>> all >>>> caps: >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change >>>> in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that >>>>> the >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>>> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is >>>>> accepted >>>> by the >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>>> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >>>>> the >>>> SCI >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of >>>> Wednesday, >>>> 12 >>>> December.** >>>>> >>>>> With best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of >>>> termination orsuspension. >>>> The >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>>> support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>>> initiation >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; >>>> or warranting a suspension; or >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack >>>> of volunteer participation. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>>>> termination, >>>> the >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>>>> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > PDP.docx> -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l?employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu?il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Sun Dec 16 15:23:00 2012 From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 10:23:00 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD960246935@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD960245E5E@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com>, <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD960246935@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <50CDA1040200005B0009DB10@smtp.law.unh.edu> Thanks, Marika - perhaps using the term "interim status report" conveys more than I'd intended to suggest in supporting the concept. What I had in mind was simply a statement from the Council when voting to suspend a PDP, giving its reasons for so doing. The intention was to so notify the community - incuding the ICANN Board in cases of Board-directed PDPs - that such an action had been taken. As such, and instead of using the term "interim status report" we could just say "a statement of reasons" from the GNSO Council. 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 at 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" To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , "randruff at rnapartners.com" , "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" , "marika.konings at icann.org" Date: 12/16/2012 8:29 AM Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Marika, I see the point of broader considerations but think the analogy to a bandaid on an unmanifested wound is very poor. It's actually a bit more like putting on a helmet before riding a bike. See you Monday at the brunch and maybe we can talk further! Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Marika Konings [marika.konings at icann.org] Received: Sunday, 16 Dec 2012, 2:10am To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com]; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, it may be worth pointing out that for every PDP as well as non-PDP, there are regular status updates already provided. For example, the GNSO project list which is updated on a monthly basis (see http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf). Also, each project has their own page on the GNSO web-site which is updated with every milestone activity (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active-groups.htm). In addition, each resolution that is adopted by the GNSO Council contains the rationale for that decision in the 'whereas' clauses (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions). It should also be noted that an 'interim status report' is currently not defined in the PDP Manual (what would need to be in there, who is responsible for preparing it, would it need to be adopted by a vote of the GNSO Council?). Furthermore, in addition to the Board, ICANN Advisory Committees can also request Issue Reports, but they have not been considered in this conversation. As a result, I would really like to encourage the SCI to review this issue in a broader context (if/when/how should PDP status updates be provided to entities other than the GNSO Council during the lifespan of a PDP, taking into account all the different communication tools already in place) as part of the overall review of the PDP, instead of applying a bandaid here to a wound that has not even manifested itself. Best regards, Marika From: , Anne Date: Saturday 15 December 2012 18:58 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , "randruff at rnapartners.com" , "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Just a minor note that at this point we were not limiting the interim status report to any "Board-directed PDP". I think the simplest add would be to require an interim status report to the GNSO Council, e.g. "all activities (other than an interim status report to the Council) will halt." Then SCI could recommend that the interim status report be published to the entire community. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] Received: Friday, 14 Dec 2012, 7:22pm To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com] Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I support the concept of an interim report to be put out to the community by the GNSO Council upon its suspension of a PDP; however, I'd like to separate out our actual recommendation (which is to clarify what and when there is considered to be a suspension of a PDP) with our opinion as to either the GNSO Council's relationship with/reaction to Board-directed PDPs or as to appropriate action by the Council in voting for a suspension. I'd therefore suggest a slight modification to our Option 3 - take the language/mention of an interim report out of the sentence containing our recommendation, and either add a new sentence following that, or create an additional, related recommendation, stating that "The SCI recommends that, in cases of suspension of a Board-directed PDP, the GNSO Council issues an interim report stating the reasons for such suspension to the community." Or something along those lines. 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 at 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 >>> "Ron Andruff" 12/14/12 3:13 PM >>> Dear all, Recognizing that I am not yet installed as the Chair of the SCI until our next meeting this coming Thursday (Dec. 20th), yet being responsible for that meeting, (forgive me Wolf-Ulrich) I have two requests: (1) It would be very helpful if all SCI members would look at where we are with the ?Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote? and add your thoughts. The most recent exchanges on that thread are noted below. It appears that we have found a way forward, but this needs to be confirmed by all members. (2) I would also ask everyone to take a few minutes to complete the Survey that Julie sent around again today with her request that we all fill it out and note our experience and thoughts about amendments. She has asked for this to be done by Wednesday, Dec. 19th, so please do take a few minutes if you can spare them during this busy lead up to Christmas so that we can have a productive discussion. Thank you all in advance for attending to these two outstanding items. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 12:44 PM To: 'Ron Andruff'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Ron, I would certainly support that notion in the interest of accountability and transparency. 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 at 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: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Question for all re: an interim status report to the ICANN Board If I understand Anne?s line of thinking, the concern is about how to deal specifically with Board requested PDPs that are suspended. However, option 3 sounds like we are recommending that the Board receive an interim report whether they have initiated the PDP or not. This is a significant change and would only add more to the Board?s already full plate, in my view. That said, in circumstance where a suspension has been called for, I do see the merit of requesting that Council generate an interim report and post it to inform the entire community of the suspension and reason(s) for which it was suspended. That would be quite logical in the larger scheme of things. Anne, please correct me if I am wrong. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:58 AM To: 'KnobenW at telekom.de'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I would propose a third option: 3. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 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 at 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:KnobenW at telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:49 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, from the list I did not understand a clear objection against sending the draft motion to the council with the option of withdrawing it if there can't be found SCI consensus. So I took this responsibility and did it to preserve this chance. I'd like to encourage all of us to continue working at a solution re the footnote. 2 suggestions are at the table: 1. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. Suspension is a STATEDtime interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council, subject to ICANN Board review in those cases where the Board has requested GNSO input. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 3. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. Please comment. I wonder what how to proceed if there will be no consensus found at thew time being. On the one hand I've got the impression that a majority would be satisfied with suggestion #1 but also open to find a solution which doesn't cause the need for another public comment period. In case of no consensus we could also - as we did with other items discussed at the SCI - report to the council where we are, that there has been a public comment period successfully finished, but there are still concerns which would prevent the SCI from consensus. The council may then decide how to deal with the (publicly commented) text. I would be thankful hearing your assessment on and under which conditions consensus could still be achieved. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2012 03:13 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I do not believe that this "negative response" mechanism is in accordance with the full consensus process. I also believe I spoke against this at the last reading. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: KnobenW at telekom.de [KnobenW at telekom.de] Received: Wednesday, 12 Dec 2012, 5:06am To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, per its charter, the SCI is expected to take decisions using a 'full consensus' process ("when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings"). Obviously it would be ideal if all members support a certain position. It would also be ideal if we find consensus today which is the deadline for motions before the next counciil meeting. But in order to reduce time pressure I could imagine the option to submit the draft motion today, noting that there are some issues that are still being discussed by the SCI which may result in withdrawal of the motion and agenda item if no agreement can be found. If there is no objection I'll do so accordingly at the end of the day. Thanks for this valuable discussion and for your understanding. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Julie Hedlund To: Alain Berranger , "KnobenW at telekom.de" Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" , "avri at acm.org" , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Alain, One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change from the original footnote text. The previous suggestion ? adding the word "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public Comment Forum on new language. As discussed during last Thursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented in the public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that the revised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days. Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longer period, perhaps 30 days. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Alain Berranger Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" , "avri at acm.org" , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, and priority... Alain On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, wrote: We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, just bring it to the point. First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should be agreed. Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the concern? Or do others have? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't think we are unanimous. 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 ( tel:%28520%29%20629-4428 ) . Fax (520) 879-4725 ( tel:%28520%29%20879-4725 ) AAikman at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still concerned. avri On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, wrote: > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" wrote: > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position where it >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not >> answered our questions." This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >> 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 ( tel:%28520%29%20879-4725 )AAikman at 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 at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >> Konings >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri >>> Doria >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >>> Specifically: >>> >>> " >>> March 212 20120314-1 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >>> Whois >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> " >>> November 2012 20121017-2 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the >>> New gTLD Program. >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >>> >>> " >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >>> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >>> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >>> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >>> No vote is required for such action. >>> " >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>>> Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one >>>> their preemptory decisions. >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >>>> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anne and all, >>>>> >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation >>>> that the council should follow a related board request. I think >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debate following the >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. >>>>> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>>> Julie? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>>> says, >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an >>>> answer >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >>>>> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and >>>>> the >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>>> "oasis" >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >>>>> at >>>> the >>>> GNSO level. >>>>> >>>>> 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 ( tel:%28520%29%20629-4428 ) . Fax (520) 879-4725 ( tel:%28520%29%20879-4725 ) AAikman at LRLaw.com . >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named >>>>> within >>>> the message. >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply >>>>> e-mail and delete the >>>> original message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>>> comment >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>>> >>>>> jse >>>>> >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>>> Inc. >>>> - 408.349.1385 ( tel:408.349.1385 ) - jscottevans at yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" ; >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>>> deleted? >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> From: , Anne >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>> , >>>> Julie Hedlund >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>>> If >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would >>>> not apply. >>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed >>>> Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>> clarification to >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold >>>> all >>>> caps: >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change >>>> in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that >>>>> the >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>>> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is >>>>> accepted >>>> by the >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>>> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >>>>> the >>>> SCI >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of >>>> Wednesday, >>>> 12 >>>> December.** >>>>> >>>>> With best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of >>>> termination orsuspension. >>>> The >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>>> support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>>> initiation >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; >>>> or warranting a suspension; or >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack >>>> of volunteer participation. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>>>> termination, >>>> the >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>>>> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>>>> >>>>> For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to >>>> www.lewisandroca.com. >>>>> Phoenix (602)262-5311 ( tel:%28602%29262-5311 ) Reno (775)823-2900 ( tel:%28775%29823-2900 ) >>>>> Tucson (520)622-2090 ( tel:%28520%29622-2090 ) Albuquerque(505)764-5400 ( tel:%28505%29764-5400 ) >>>>> Las Vegas (702)949-8200 ( tel:%28702%29949-8200 ) Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 ( tel:%28650%29391-1380 ) >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > PDP.docx> -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l?employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu?il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Sun Dec 16 15:23:37 2012 From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 10:23:37 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD960246935@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD960245E5E@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com>, <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD960246935@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <50CDA1290200005B0009DB17@smtp.law.unh.edu> Thanks, Marika - perhaps using the term "interim status report" conveys more than I'd intended to suggest in supporting the concept. What I had in mind was simply a statement from the Council when voting to suspend a PDP, giving its reasons for so doing. The intention was to so notify the community - incuding the ICANN Board in cases of Board-directed PDPs - that such an action had been taken. As such, and instead of using the term "interim status report" we could just say "a statement of reasons" from the GNSO Council. 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 at 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" To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , "randruff at rnapartners.com" , "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" , "marika.konings at icann.org" Date: 12/16/2012 8:29 AM Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Marika, I see the point of broader considerations but think the analogy to a bandaid on an unmanifested wound is very poor. It's actually a bit more like putting on a helmet before riding a bike. See you Monday at the brunch and maybe we can talk further! Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Marika Konings [marika.konings at icann.org] Received: Sunday, 16 Dec 2012, 2:10am To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com]; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, it may be worth pointing out that for every PDP as well as non-PDP, there are regular status updates already provided. For example, the GNSO project list which is updated on a monthly basis (see http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf). Also, each project has their own page on the GNSO web-site which is updated with every milestone activity (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active-groups.htm). In addition, each resolution that is adopted by the GNSO Council contains the rationale for that decision in the 'whereas' clauses (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions). It should also be noted that an 'interim status report' is currently not defined in the PDP Manual (what would need to be in there, who is responsible for preparing it, would it need to be adopted by a vote of the GNSO Council?). Furthermore, in addition to the Board, ICANN Advisory Committees can also request Issue Reports, but they have not been considered in this conversation. As a result, I would really like to encourage the SCI to review this issue in a broader context (if/when/how should PDP status updates be provided to entities other than the GNSO Council during the lifespan of a PDP, taking into account all the different communication tools already in place) as part of the overall review of the PDP, instead of applying a bandaid here to a wound that has not even manifested itself. Best regards, Marika From: , Anne Date: Saturday 15 December 2012 18:58 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , "randruff at rnapartners.com" , "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Just a minor note that at this point we were not limiting the interim status report to any "Board-directed PDP". I think the simplest add would be to require an interim status report to the GNSO Council, e.g. "all activities (other than an interim status report to the Council) will halt." Then SCI could recommend that the interim status report be published to the entire community. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] Received: Friday, 14 Dec 2012, 7:22pm To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com] Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I support the concept of an interim report to be put out to the community by the GNSO Council upon its suspension of a PDP; however, I'd like to separate out our actual recommendation (which is to clarify what and when there is considered to be a suspension of a PDP) with our opinion as to either the GNSO Council's relationship with/reaction to Board-directed PDPs or as to appropriate action by the Council in voting for a suspension. I'd therefore suggest a slight modification to our Option 3 - take the language/mention of an interim report out of the sentence containing our recommendation, and either add a new sentence following that, or create an additional, related recommendation, stating that "The SCI recommends that, in cases of suspension of a Board-directed PDP, the GNSO Council issues an interim report stating the reasons for such suspension to the community." Or something along those lines. 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 at 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 >>> "Ron Andruff" 12/14/12 3:13 PM >>> Dear all, Recognizing that I am not yet installed as the Chair of the SCI until our next meeting this coming Thursday (Dec. 20th), yet being responsible for that meeting, (forgive me Wolf-Ulrich) I have two requests: (1) It would be very helpful if all SCI members would look at where we are with the ?Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote? and add your thoughts. The most recent exchanges on that thread are noted below. It appears that we have found a way forward, but this needs to be confirmed by all members. (2) I would also ask everyone to take a few minutes to complete the Survey that Julie sent around again today with her request that we all fill it out and note our experience and thoughts about amendments. She has asked for this to be done by Wednesday, Dec. 19th, so please do take a few minutes if you can spare them during this busy lead up to Christmas so that we can have a productive discussion. Thank you all in advance for attending to these two outstanding items. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 12:44 PM To: 'Ron Andruff'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Ron, I would certainly support that notion in the interest of accountability and transparency. 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 at 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: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Question for all re: an interim status report to the ICANN Board If I understand Anne?s line of thinking, the concern is about how to deal specifically with Board requested PDPs that are suspended. However, option 3 sounds like we are recommending that the Board receive an interim report whether they have initiated the PDP or not. This is a significant change and would only add more to the Board?s already full plate, in my view. That said, in circumstance where a suspension has been called for, I do see the merit of requesting that Council generate an interim report and post it to inform the entire community of the suspension and reason(s) for which it was suspended. That would be quite logical in the larger scheme of things. Anne, please correct me if I am wrong. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:58 AM To: 'KnobenW at telekom.de'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I would propose a third option: 3. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 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 at 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:KnobenW at telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:49 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, from the list I did not understand a clear objection against sending the draft motion to the council with the option of withdrawing it if there can't be found SCI consensus. So I took this responsibility and did it to preserve this chance. I'd like to encourage all of us to continue working at a solution re the footnote. 2 suggestions are at the table: 1. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. Suspension is a STATEDtime interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council, subject to ICANN Board review in those cases where the Board has requested GNSO input. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 3. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. Please comment. I wonder what how to proceed if there will be no consensus found at thew time being. On the one hand I've got the impression that a majority would be satisfied with suggestion #1 but also open to find a solution which doesn't cause the need for another public comment period. In case of no consensus we could also - as we did with other items discussed at the SCI - report to the council where we are, that there has been a public comment period successfully finished, but there are still concerns which would prevent the SCI from consensus. The council may then decide how to deal with the (publicly commented) text. I would be thankful hearing your assessment on and under which conditions consensus could still be achieved. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2012 03:13 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I do not believe that this "negative response" mechanism is in accordance with the full consensus process. I also believe I spoke against this at the last reading. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: KnobenW at telekom.de [KnobenW at telekom.de] Received: Wednesday, 12 Dec 2012, 5:06am To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, per its charter, the SCI is expected to take decisions using a 'full consensus' process ("when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings"). Obviously it would be ideal if all members support a certain position. It would also be ideal if we find consensus today which is the deadline for motions before the next counciil meeting. But in order to reduce time pressure I could imagine the option to submit the draft motion today, noting that there are some issues that are still being discussed by the SCI which may result in withdrawal of the motion and agenda item if no agreement can be found. If there is no objection I'll do so accordingly at the end of the day. Thanks for this valuable discussion and for your understanding. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Julie Hedlund To: Alain Berranger , "KnobenW at telekom.de" Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" , "avri at acm.org" , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Alain, One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change from the original footnote text. The previous suggestion ? adding the word "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public Comment Forum on new language. As discussed during last Thursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented in the public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that the revised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days. Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longer period, perhaps 30 days. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Alain Berranger Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" , "avri at acm.org" , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, and priority... Alain On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, wrote: We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, just bring it to the point. First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should be agreed. Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the concern? Or do others have? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't think we are unanimous. 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 ( tel:%28520%29%20629-4428 ) . Fax (520) 879-4725 ( tel:%28520%29%20879-4725 ) AAikman at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still concerned. avri On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, wrote: > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" wrote: > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position where it >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not >> answered our questions." This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >> 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 ( tel:%28520%29%20879-4725 )AAikman at 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 at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >> Konings >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri >>> Doria >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >>> Specifically: >>> >>> " >>> March 212 20120314-1 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >>> Whois >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> " >>> November 2012 20121017-2 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the >>> New gTLD Program. >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >>> >>> " >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >>> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >>> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >>> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >>> No vote is required for such action. >>> " >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>>> Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one >>>> their preemptory decisions. >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >>>> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anne and all, >>>>> >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation >>>> that the council should follow a related board request. I think >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debate following the >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. >>>>> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>>> Julie? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>>> says, >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an >>>> answer >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >>>>> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and >>>>> the >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>>> "oasis" >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >>>>> at >>>> the >>>> GNSO level. >>>>> >>>>> 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 ( tel:%28520%29%20629-4428 ) . Fax (520) 879-4725 ( tel:%28520%29%20879-4725 ) AAikman at LRLaw.com . >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named >>>>> within >>>> the message. >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply >>>>> e-mail and delete the >>>> original message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>>> comment >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>>> >>>>> jse >>>>> >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>>> Inc. >>>> - 408.349.1385 ( tel:408.349.1385 ) - jscottevans at yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" ; >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>>> deleted? >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> From: , Anne >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>> , >>>> Julie Hedlund >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>>> If >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would >>>> not apply. >>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed >>>> Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>> clarification to >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold >>>> all >>>> caps: >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change >>>> in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that >>>>> the >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>>> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is >>>>> accepted >>>> by the >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>>> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >>>>> the >>>> SCI >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of >>>> Wednesday, >>>> 12 >>>> December.** >>>>> >>>>> With best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of >>>> termination orsuspension. >>>> The >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>>> support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>>> initiation >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; >>>> or warranting a suspension; or >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack >>>> of volunteer participation. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>>>> termination, >>>> the >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>>>> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>>>> >>>>> For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to >>>> www.lewisandroca.com. >>>>> Phoenix (602)262-5311 ( tel:%28602%29262-5311 ) Reno (775)823-2900 ( tel:%28775%29823-2900 ) >>>>> Tucson (520)622-2090 ( tel:%28520%29622-2090 ) Albuquerque(505)764-5400 ( tel:%28505%29764-5400 ) >>>>> Las Vegas (702)949-8200 ( tel:%28702%29949-8200 ) Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 ( tel:%28650%29391-1380 ) >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > PDP.docx> -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l?employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu?il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Mon Dec 17 12:10:39 2012 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:10:39 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: <50CDA1290200005B0009DB17@smtp.law.unh.edu> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD960245E5E@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com>, <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD960246935@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com>,<50CDA1290200005B0009DB17@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9602474F1@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Mary and Marika, I think this discussion points out why more thought is needed in this process. To go back to the question I had raised, there is a basic problem of the Board being put in an unworkable position if it does not get answers from the GNSO. A statement of why the PDP is being suspended is not in fact the same as a summary of where the working group finds itself at the time of suspension, the different viewpoints that exist at that time, etc. I believe that there is a lot at stake if ICANN is unable to effectively address GAC advice in particular with timely policy input from the GNSO. There can be many possible reasons for suspension, but a written report of the status should be required at suspension or the GNSO may simply leave the Board (and sometimes the GAC) in limbo. If and when that happens, it provides support for the arguments of those who would vest more control in individual governments. I am honestly beginning to think that the real "bandaid" in this scenario is a suspension provision that is codified in the PDP manual (part of GNSO Operating procedures) without adequate analysis of the consequences. Perhaps a perceived need to codify this should be part of the process that Marika has mentioned when the SCI looks at the entire PDP process in one year. Apparently suspension was not addressed in the PDP working group so maybe we should not be trying to do the job for them. Suspension is not merely a minor subset of termination which has no consequences on policy or organizational effectiveness. In terms of consensus process, I have shared my concerns with IPC leadership over the past ten days and am awaiting their further direction. This is one reason that I say a "negative response" mechanism does not meet the full consensus process. There are also problems with this approach in terms of system downtime, travel, and time zones such as Mary is facing right now. By the way, I should also mention that the version of the December 6 transcript that was posted right after that meeting contained a number of inaccuracies. For example, it credits Marika with saying that it is more important to get it right than it is to be concerned that this has been out for public comment. I doubt she wants to be credited with that statement. There were also inaccuracies in the transcript of what I said. To the extent that GNSO councilors may have viewed the written transcript to inform themselves on the issue, there could be some misunderstandings. I am headed to the Prioritization Draw today and have some other deadlines. I will check back into this list tomorrow. Again, I am awaiting further direction from IPC leadership with respect to this matter. Thank you, Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] Received: Sunday, 16 Dec 2012, 8:23am To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; marika.konings at icann.org [marika.konings at icann.org]; Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com] Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Thanks, Marika - perhaps using the term "interim status report" conveys more than I'd intended to suggest in supporting the concept. What I had in mind was simply a statement from the Council when voting to suspend a PDP, giving its reasons for so doing. The intention was to so notify the community - incuding the ICANN Board in cases of Board-directed PDPs - that such an action had been taken. As such, and instead of using the term "interim status report" we could just say "a statement of reasons" from the GNSO Council. 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 at 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" To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , "randruff at rnapartners.com" , "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" , "marika.konings at icann.org" Date: 12/16/2012 8:29 AM Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Marika, I see the point of broader considerations but think the analogy to a bandaid on an unmanifested wound is very poor. It's actually a bit more like putting on a helmet before riding a bike. See you Monday at the brunch and maybe we can talk further! Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Marika Konings [marika.konings at icann.org] Received: Sunday, 16 Dec 2012, 2:10am To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com]; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, it may be worth pointing out that for every PDP as well as non-PDP, there are regular status updates already provided. For example, the GNSO project list which is updated on a monthly basis (see http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf). Also, each project has their own page on the GNSO web-site which is updated with every milestone activity (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active-groups.htm). In addition, each resolution that is adopted by the GNSO Council contains the rationale for that decision in the 'whereas' clauses (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions). It should also be noted that an 'interim status report' is currently not defined in the PDP Manual (what would need to be in there, who is responsible for preparing it, would it need to be adopted by a vote of the GNSO Council?). Furthermore, in addition to the Board, ICANN Advisory Committees can also request Issue Reports, but they have not been considered in this conversation. As a result, I would really like to encourage the SCI to review this issue in a broader context (if/when/how should PDP status updates be provided to entities other than the GNSO Council during the lifespan of a PDP, taking into account all the different communication tools already in place) as part of the overall review of the PDP, instead of applying a bandaid here to a wound that has not even manifested itself. Best regards, Marika From: , Anne > Date: Saturday 15 December 2012 18:58 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, "randruff at rnapartners.com" >, "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Just a minor note that at this point we were not limiting the interim status report to any "Board-directed PDP". I think the simplest add would be to require an interim status report to the GNSO Council, e.g. "all activities (other than an interim status report to the Council) will halt." Then SCI could recommend that the interim status report be published to the entire community. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] Received: Friday, 14 Dec 2012, 7:22pm To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com] Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I support the concept of an interim report to be put out to the community by the GNSO Council upon its suspension of a PDP; however, I'd like to separate out our actual recommendation (which is to clarify what and when there is considered to be a suspension of a PDP) with our opinion as to either the GNSO Council's relationship with/reaction to Board-directed PDPs or as to appropriate action by the Council in voting for a suspension. I'd therefore suggest a slight modification to our Option 3 - take the language/mention of an interim report out of the sentence containing our recommendation, and either add a new sentence following that, or create an additional, related recommendation, stating that "The SCI recommends that, in cases of suspension of a Board-directed PDP, the GNSO Council issues an interim report stating the reasons for such suspension to the community." Or something along those lines. 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 at 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 >>> "Ron Andruff" 12/14/12 3:13 PM >>> Dear all, Recognizing that I am not yet installed as the Chair of the SCI until our next meeting this coming Thursday (Dec. 20th), yet being responsible for that meeting, (forgive me Wolf-Ulrich) I have two requests: (1) It would be very helpful if all SCI members would look at where we are with the ?Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote? and add your thoughts. The most recent exchanges on that thread are noted below. It appears that we have found a way forward, but this needs to be confirmed by all members. (2) I would also ask everyone to take a few minutes to complete the Survey that Julie sent around again today with her request that we all fill it out and note our experience and thoughts about amendments. She has asked for this to be done by Wednesday, Dec. 19th, so please do take a few minutes if you can spare them during this busy lead up to Christmas so that we can have a productive discussion. Thank you all in advance for attending to these two outstanding items. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. ________________________________ From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 12:44 PM To: 'Ron Andruff'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Ron, I would certainly support that notion in the interest of accountability and transparency. [%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20] 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 at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Question for all re: an interim status report to the ICANN Board If I understand Anne?s line of thinking, the concern is about how to deal specifically with Board requested PDPs that are suspended. However, option 3 sounds like we are recommending that the Board receive an interim report whether they have initiated the PDP or not. This is a significant change and would only add more to the Board?s already full plate, in my view. That said, in circumstance where a suspension has been called for, I do see the merit of requesting that Council generate an interim report and post it to inform the entire community of the suspension and reason(s) for which it was suspended. That would be quite logical in the larger scheme of things. Anne, please correct me if I am wrong. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. ________________________________ From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:58 AM To: 'KnobenW at telekom.de'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I would propose a third option: 3. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. [378205215 at 13122012-3268] 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 at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From:KnobenW at telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:49 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, from the list I did not understand a clear objection against sending the draft motion to the council with the option of withdrawing it if there can't be found SCI consensus. So I took this responsibility and did it to preserve this chance. I'd like to encourage all of us to continue working at a solution re the footnote. 2 suggestions are at the table: 1. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 1. Suspension is a STATEDtime interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council, subject to ICANN Board review in those cases where the Board has requested GNSO input. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 3. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. Please comment. I wonder what how to proceed if there will be no consensus found at thew time being. On the one hand I've got the impression that a majority would be satisfied with suggestion #1 but also open to find a solution which doesn't cause the need for another public comment period. In case of no consensus we could also - as we did with other items discussed at the SCI - report to the council where we are, that there has been a public comment period successfully finished, but there are still concerns which would prevent the SCI from consensus. The council may then decide how to deal with the (publicly commented) text. I would be thankful hearing your assessment on and under which conditions consensus could still be achieved. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2012 03:13 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I do not believe that this "negative response" mechanism is in accordance with the full consensus process. I also believe I spoke against this at the last reading. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: KnobenW at telekom.de [KnobenW at telekom.de] Received: Wednesday, 12 Dec 2012, 5:06am To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, per its charter, the SCI is expected to take decisions using a 'full consensus' process ("when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings"). Obviously it would be ideal if all members support a certain position. It would also be ideal if we find consensus today which is the deadline for motions before the next counciil meeting. But in order to reduce time pressure I could imagine the option to submit the draft motion today, noting that there are some issues that are still being discussed by the SCI which may result in withdrawal of the motion and agenda item if no agreement can be found. If there is no objection I'll do so accordingly at the end of the day. Thanks for this valuable discussion and for your understanding. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Julie Hedlund > To: Alain Berranger >, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Alain, One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change from the original footnote text. The previous suggestion ? adding the word "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public Comment Forum on new language. As discussed during last Thursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented in the public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that the revised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days. Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longer period, perhaps 30 days. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Alain Berranger > Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, and priority... Alain On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, > wrote: We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, just bring it to the point. First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should be agreed. Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the concern? Or do others have? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't think we are unanimous. 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still concerned. avri On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, > > wrote: > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > wrote: > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position where it >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not >> answered our questions." This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >> 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) 879-4725AAikman at 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 at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >> Konings >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri >>> Doria >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >>> Specifically: >>> >>> " >>> March 212 20120314-1 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >>> Whois >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> " >>> November 2012 20121017-2 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the >>> New gTLD Program. >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >>> >>> " >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >>> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >>> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >>> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >>> No vote is required for such action. >>> " >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>>> Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one >>>> their preemptory decisions. >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >>>> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, > > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anne and all, >>>>> >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation >>>> that the council should follow a related board request. I think >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debate following the >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. >>>>> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>>> Julie? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>>> says, >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an >>>> answer >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >>>>> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and >>>>> the >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>>> "oasis" >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >>>>> at >>>> the >>>> GNSO level. >>>>> >>>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named >>>>> within >>>> the message. >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply >>>>> e-mail and delete the >>>> original message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>>> comment >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>>> >>>>> jse >>>>> >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>>> Inc. >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund > >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >; >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>>> deleted? >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> From: , Anne > >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>> >, >>>> Julie Hedlund > >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>>> If >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would >>>> not apply. >>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed >>>> Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>> clarification to >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold >>>> all >>>> caps: >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change >>>> in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that >>>>> the >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>>> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is >>>>> accepted >>>> by the >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>>> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >>>>> the >>>> SCI >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of >>>> Wednesday, >>>> 12 >>>> December.** >>>>> >>>>> With best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of >>>> termination orsuspension. >>>> The >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>>> support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>>> initiation >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; >>>> or warranting a suspension; or >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack >>>> of volunteer participation. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>>>> termination, >>>> the >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>>>> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > PDP.docx> -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l?employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu?il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Mon Dec 17 12:43:56 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 13:43:56 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9602474F1@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD960245E5E@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com>, <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD960246935@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com>,<50CDA1290200005B0009DB17@smtp.law.unh.edu> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9602474F1@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <8E7C39B0-EAE4-4EB8-B8D5-C21B94D42BCF@acm.org> Hi, I think that whether we are using positive or negative consensus, once someone raise a concern flag, it is an active consensus, at least with regard to that one person. I can't see us moving forward on this, until everyone is satisfied. I am certainly not in favro of having the g-council vote on it as it stands. avri On 17 Dec 2012, at 13:10, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > Mary and Marika, I think this discussion points out why more thought is needed in this process. To go back to the question I had raised, there is a basic problem of the Board being put in an unworkable position if it does not get answers from the GNSO. A statement of why the PDP is being suspended is not in fact the same as a summary of where the working group finds itself at the time of suspension, the different viewpoints that exist at that time, etc. I believe that there is a lot at stake if ICANN is unable to effectively address GAC advice in particular with timely policy input from the GNSO. There can be many possible reasons for suspension, but a written report of the status should be required at suspension or the GNSO may simply leave the Board (and sometimes the GAC) in limbo. If and when that happens, it provides support for the arguments of those who would vest more control in individual governments. > > I am honestly beginning to think that the real "bandaid" in this scenario is a suspension provision that is codified in the PDP manual (part of GNSO Operating procedures) without adequate analysis of the consequences. Perhaps a perceived need to codify this should be part of the process that Marika has mentioned when the SCI looks at the entire PDP process in one year. Apparently suspension was not addressed in the PDP working group so maybe we should not be trying to do the job for them. Suspension is not merely a minor subset of termination which has no consequences on policy or organizational effectiveness. > > In terms of consensus process, I have shared my concerns with IPC leadership over the past ten days and am awaiting their further direction. This is one reason that I say a "negative response" mechanism does not meet the full consensus process. There are also problems with this approach in terms of system downtime, travel, and time zones such as Mary is facing right now. > > By the way, I should also mention that the version of the December 6 transcript that was posted right after that meeting contained a number of inaccuracies. For example, it credits Marika with saying that it is more important to get it right than it is to be concerned that this has been out for public comment. I doubt she wants to be credited with that statement. There were also inaccuracies in the transcript of what I said. To the extent that GNSO councilors may have viewed the written transcript to inform themselves on the issue, there could be some misunderstandings. > I am headed to the Prioritization Draw today and have some other deadlines. I will check back into this list tomorrow. Again, I am awaiting further direction from IPC leadership with respect to this matter. > Thank you, > Anne > > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] > Received: Sunday, 16 Dec 2012, 8:23am > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; marika.konings at icann.org [marika.konings at icann.org]; Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com] > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Thanks, Marika - perhaps using the term "interim status report" conveys more than I'd intended to suggest in supporting the concept. What I had in mind was simply a statement from the Council when voting to suspend a PDP, giving its reasons for so doing. The intention was to so notify the community - incuding the ICANN Board in cases of Board-directed PDPs - that such an action had been taken. As such, and instead of using the term "interim status report" we could just say "a statement of reasons" from the GNSO Council. > > 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 at 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" > To: > "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , "randruff at rnapartners.com" , "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" , "marika.konings at icann.org" > Date: > 12/16/2012 8:29 AM > Subject: > Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > Marika, I see the point of broader considerations but think the analogy to a bandaid on an unmanifested wound is very poor. It's actually a bit more like putting on a helmet before riding a bike. See you Monday at the brunch and maybe we can talk further! Anne > > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Marika Konings [marika.konings at icann.org] > Received: Sunday, 16 Dec 2012, 2:10am > To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com]; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > All, it may be worth pointing out that for every PDP as well as non-PDP, there are regular status updates already provided. For example, the GNSO project list which is updated on a monthly basis (see http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf). Also, each project has their own page on the GNSO web-site which is updated with every milestone activity (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active-groups.htm). In addition, each resolution that is adopted by the GNSO Council contains the rationale for that decision in the 'whereas' clauses (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions). > > It should also be noted that an 'interim status report' is currently not defined in the PDP Manual (what would need to be in there, who is responsible for preparing it, would it need to be adopted by a vote of the GNSO Council?). Furthermore, in addition to the Board, ICANN Advisory Committees can also request Issue Reports, but they have not been considered in this conversation. > > As a result, I would really like to encourage the SCI to review this issue in a broader context (if/when/how should PDP status updates be provided to entities other than the GNSO Council during the lifespan of a PDP, taking into account all the different communication tools already in place) as part of the overall review of the PDP, instead of applying a bandaid here to a wound that has not even manifested itself. > > Best regards, > > Marika > > From: , Anne > Date: Saturday 15 December 2012 18:58 > To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , "randruff at rnapartners.com" , "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Just a minor note that at this point we were not limiting the interim status report to any "Board-directed PDP". I think the simplest add would be to require an interim status report to the GNSO Council, e.g. "all activities (other than an interim status report to the Council) will halt." Then SCI could recommend that the interim status report be published to the entire community. Anne > > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] > Received: Friday, 14 Dec 2012, 7:22pm > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com] > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > I support the concept of an interim report to be put out to the community by the GNSO Council upon its suspension of a PDP; however, I'd like to separate out our actual recommendation (which is to clarify what and when there is considered to be a suspension of a PDP) with our opinion as to either the GNSO Council's relationship with/reaction to Board-directed PDPs or as to appropriate action by the Council in voting for a suspension. > > I'd therefore suggest a slight modification to our Option 3 - take the language/mention of an interim report out of the sentence containing our recommendation, and either add a new sentence following that, or create an additional, related recommendation, stating that "The SCI recommends that, in cases of suspension of a Board-directed PDP, the GNSO Council issues an interim report stating the reasons for such suspension to the community." Or something along those lines. > > 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 at 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 > > >>> "Ron Andruff" 12/14/12 3:13 PM >>> > Dear all, > > Recognizing that I am not yet installed as the Chair of the SCI until our next meeting this coming Thursday (Dec. 20th), yet being responsible for that meeting, (forgive me Wolf-Ulrich) I have two requests: > > (1) It would be very helpful if all SCI members would look at where we are with the ?Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote? and add your thoughts. The most recent exchanges on that thread are noted below. It appears that we have found a way forward, but this needs to be confirmed by all members. > > (2) I would also ask everyone to take a few minutes to complete the Survey that Julie sent around again today with her request that we all fill it out and note our experience and thoughts about amendments. She has asked for this to be done by Wednesday, Dec. 19th, so please do take a few minutes if you can spare them during this busy lead up to Christmas so that we can have a productive discussion. > > Thank you all in advance for attending to these two outstanding items. > > Kind regards, > > RA > > Ronald N. Andruff > RNA Partners, Inc. > > > From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 12:44 PM > To: 'Ron Andruff'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Ron, I would certainly support that notion in the interest of accountability and transparency. > > 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 at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman > P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. > This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information > intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. > If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the > agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are > hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or > copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication > was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. > > > > From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:39 AM > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > Question for all re: an interim status report to the ICANN Board > > If I understand Anne?s line of thinking, the concern is about how to deal specifically with Board requested PDPs that are suspended. However, option 3 sounds like we are recommending that the Board receive an interim report whether they have initiated the PDP or not. This is a significant change and would only add more to the Board?s already full plate, in my view. > > That said, in circumstance where a suspension has been called for, I do see the merit of requesting that Council generate an interim report and post it to inform the entire community of the suspension and reason(s) for which it was suspended. That would be quite logical in the larger scheme of things. > > Anne, please correct me if I am wrong. > > Kind regards, > > RA > > Ronald N. Andruff > RNA Partners, Inc. > > > > From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:58 AM > To: 'KnobenW at telekom.de'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > I would propose a third option: > 3. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. > > > 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 at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman > P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. > This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information > intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. > If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the > agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are > hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or > copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication > was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. > > > > From:KnobenW at telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de] > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:49 AM > To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > All, > > from the list I did not understand a clear objection against sending the draft motion to the council with the option of withdrawing it if there can't be found SCI consensus. So I took this responsibility and did it to preserve this chance. > > I'd like to encourage all of us to continue working at a solution re the footnote. 2 suggestions are at the table: > 1. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. > ? > Suspension is a STATEDtime interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council, subject to ICANN Board review in those cases where the Board has requested GNSO input. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. > 3. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. > > > Please comment. > > I wonder what how to proceed if there will be no consensus found at thew time being. On the one hand I've got the impression that a majority would be satisfied with suggestion #1 but also open to find a solution which doesn't cause the need for another public comment period. > In case of no consensus we could also - as we did with other items discussed at the SCI - report to the council where we are, that there has been a public comment period successfully finished, but there are still concerns which would prevent the SCI from consensus. The council may then decide how to deal with the (publicly commented) text. > > I would be thankful hearing your assessment on and under which conditions consensus could still be achieved. > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2012 03:13 > An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich > Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > I do not believe that this "negative response" mechanism is in accordance with the full consensus process. I also believe I spoke against this at the last reading. Anne > > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > > -----Original Message----- > From: KnobenW at telekom.de [KnobenW at telekom.de] > Received: Wednesday, 12 Dec 2012, 5:06am > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > All, > > per its charter, the SCI is expected to take decisions using a 'full consensus' process ("when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings"). > Obviously it would be ideal if all members support a certain position. > > It would also be ideal if we find consensus today which is the deadline for motions before the next counciil meeting. But in order to reduce time pressure I could imagine the option to submit the draft motion today, noting that there are some issues that are still being discussed by the SCI which may result in withdrawal of the motion and agenda item if no agreement can be found. > > If there is no objection I'll do so accordingly at the end of the day. > > Thanks for this valuable discussion and for your understanding. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > From: Julie Hedlund > To: Alain Berranger , "KnobenW at telekom.de" > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" , "avri at acm.org" , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Alain, > > One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change from the original footnote text. The previous suggestion ? adding the word "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public Comment Forum on new language. As discussed during last Thursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented in the public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that the revised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days. Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longer period, perhaps 30 days. > > With best regards, > > Julie > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > > From: Alain Berranger > Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM > To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" , "avri at acm.org" , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, and priority... > > Alain > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, wrote: > > We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, just bring it to the point. > > First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should be agreed. > > Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the concern? Or do others have? > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 > An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > > Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't think we are unanimous. > 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > > Hi, > > Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still concerned. > > avri > > On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, wrote: > > > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. > > > > > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; > > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: > > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). > > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > > > With best regards, > > > > Marika > > > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" wrote: > > > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls > >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in > >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the > >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, > >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there > >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the > >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is > >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an > >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on > >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a > >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a > >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status > >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed > >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or > >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position where it > >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not > >> answered our questions." This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. > >> 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) 879-4725AAikman at 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 at icann.org > >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika > >> Konings > >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM > >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > >> > >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the > >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation > >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process > >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a > >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois > >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of > >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions > >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of > >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out > >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no > >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically > >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a > >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which > >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information > >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue > >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO > >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another > >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board > >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result > >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to > >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. > >> > >> With best regards, > >> > >> Marika > >> > >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. > >>> > >>> > >>> Best regards > >>> Wolf-Ulrich > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri > >>> Doria > >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 > >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > >>> > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they > >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. > >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. > >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for > >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. > >>> Specifically: > >>> > >>> " > >>> March 212 20120314-1 > >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' > >>> Whois > >>> > >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois > >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 > >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); > >>> > >>> .... > >>> " > >>> > >>> " > >>> November 2012 20121017-2 > >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the > >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. > >>> > >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of > >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of > >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the > >>> New gTLD Program. > >>> > >>> .... > >>> " > >>> > >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS > >>> > >>> " > >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report > >>> > >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing > >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. > >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the > >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can > >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, > >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. > >>> > >>> .... > >>> > >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP > >>> > >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: > >>> > >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, > >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. > >>> No vote is required for such action. > >>> " > >>> > >>> avri > >>> > >>> > >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > >>> > >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP > >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne > >>>> > >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] > >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm > >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] > >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit > >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into > >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's > >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN > >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic > >>>> principles. > >>>> > >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. > >>>> > >>>> Kind regards, > >>>> > >>>> RA > >>>> > >>>> Ronald N. Andruff > >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri > >>>> Doria > >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM > >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever > >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect > >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one > >>>> their preemptory decisions. > >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - > >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this > >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the > >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even > >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. > >>>> > >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. > >>>> > >>>> avri > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Anne and all, > >>>>> > >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council > >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation > >>>> that the council should follow a related board request. I think > >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debate following the > >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. > >>>>> > >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by > >>>> Julie? > >>>>> > >>>>> Best regards > >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von > >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne > >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 > >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; > >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > >>>>> > >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board > >>>> says, > >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an > >>>> answer > >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? > >>>>> > >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and > >>>>> the > >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's > >>>> "oasis" > >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure > >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. > >>>>> > >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up > >>>>> at > >>>> the > >>>> GNSO level. > >>>>> > >>>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . > >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. > >>>>> > >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential > >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named > >>>>> within > >>>> the message. > >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or > >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you > >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution > >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this > >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply > >>>>> e-mail and delete the > >>>> original message. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] > >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM > >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; > >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > >>>>> > >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public > >>>> comment > >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. > >>>>> > >>>>> jse > >>>>> > >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! > >>>> Inc. > >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund > >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" ; > >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM > >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be > >>>> deleted? > >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. > >>>>> > >>>>> Best regards, > >>>>> Julie > >>>>> > >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a > >>>> temporary > >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a > >>>> decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or > >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." > >>>>> > >>>>> From: , Anne > >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM > >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > >>>> , > >>>> Julie Hedlund > >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > >>>>> > >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? > >>>> If > >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would > >>>> not apply. > >>>> Anne > >>>>> > >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > >>>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] > >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm > >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] > >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >>>> PDP--Proposed > >>>> Revised Footnote > >>>>> > >>>>> Dear SCI members, > >>>>> > >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a > >>>> clarification to > >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. > >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold > >>>> all > >>>> caps: > >>>>> > >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a > >>>> temporary > >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a > >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change > >>>> in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." > >>>>> > >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that > >>>>> the > >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. > >>>>> > >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is > >>>>> accepted > >>>> by the > >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. > >>>>> > >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if > >>>>> the > >>>> SCI > >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of > >>>> Wednesday, > >>>> 12 > >>>> December.** > >>>>> > >>>>> With best regards, > >>>>> > >>>>> Julie > >>>>> > >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > >>>>> > >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report > >>>>> > >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the > >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a > >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of > >>>> termination orsuspension. > >>>> The > >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a > >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to > >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong > >>>> support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and > >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; > >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the > >>>> initiation > >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; > >>>> or warranting a suspension; or > >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for > >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired > >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack > >>>> of volunteer participation. > >>>>> > >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its > >>>>> termination, > >>>> the > >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior > >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). > >>>>> > >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a > >>>> temporary > >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a > >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in > >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. > >>>>> > >>>>> 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. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > PDP.docx> > > > > > > -- > Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA > Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca > Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca > Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org > NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org > Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ > O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 > Skype: alain.berranger > > > AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? > Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l?employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu?il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. > > CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE > This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. > > From marika.konings at icann.org Mon Dec 17 12:50:51 2012 From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 04:50:51 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9602474F1@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: >From my recollection, I don't think the PDP-WT ever discussed the possibility of a suspension as it was not a scenario that had occurred (and therefore no one seemed to have thought of it). On the contrary, the need to be able to terminate a PDP was a real issue as the VI PDP had demonstrated that there may be occasions were the GNSO Council may want to officially terminate a PDP instead of forcing it to go through the motions. Suspension became first to the forefront with the 'thick' Whois PDP (after the revised PDP had already been adopted). In relation to your comment 'there is a basic problem of the Board being put in an unworkable position if it does not get answers from the GNSO', it seems to assume that the PDP would not conclude if there is a suspension. I think this is only the case when there is a termination of the PDP, at that moment, there is no further requirement for the PDP to complete its milestones and deliver recommendations to the Board. In the case of suspension, there is merely an interval of time, which needs to be stated in the resolution, during which all activities of the PDP are halted, but after which, they would resume and follow the required steps of the PDP (incl. delivering a Final Report). I could see such a suspension happening, for example, when there are studies that need to be carried out to inform the PDP deliberations and without which the PDP WG cannot make any real progress. In the hypothetical case that the GNSO Council would not want to provide answers to the Board, why wouldn't they just terminate the PDP? If there is no willingness or ability to complete the work, it doesn't seem to make sense to choose for suspension if you also have the option to terminate. Best regards, Marika From: , Anne > Date: Monday 17 December 2012 13:10 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, Marika Konings >, "randruff at rnapartners.com" >, "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Mary and Marika, I think this discussion points out why more thought is needed in this process. To go back to the question I had raised, there is a basic problem of the Board being put in an unworkable position if it does not get answers from the GNSO. A statement of why the PDP is being suspended is not in fact the same as a summary of where the working group finds itself at the time of suspension, the different viewpoints that exist at that time, etc. I believe that there is a lot at stake if ICANN is unable to effectively address GAC advice in particular with timely policy input from the GNSO. There can be many possible reasons for suspension, but a written report of the status should be required at suspension or the GNSO may simply leave the Board (and sometimes the GAC) in limbo. If and when that happens, it provides support for the arguments of those who would vest more control in individual governments. I am honestly beginning to think that the real "bandaid" in this scenario is a suspension provision that is codified in the PDP manual (part of GNSO Operating procedures) without adequate analysis of the consequences. Perhaps a perceived need to codify this should be part of the process that Marika has mentioned when the SCI looks at the entire PDP process in one year. Apparently suspension was not addressed in the PDP working group so maybe we should not be trying to do the job for them. Suspension is not merely a minor subset of termination which has no consequences on policy or organizational effectiveness. In terms of consensus process, I have shared my concerns with IPC leadership over the past ten days and am awaiting their further direction. This is one reason that I say a "negative response" mechanism does not meet the full consensus process. There are also problems with this approach in terms of system downtime, travel, and time zones such as Mary is facing right now. By the way, I should also mention that the version of the December 6 transcript that was posted right after that meeting contained a number of inaccuracies. For example, it credits Marika with saying that it is more important to get it right than it is to be concerned that this has been out for public comment. I doubt she wants to be credited with that statement. There were also inaccuracies in the transcript of what I said. To the extent that GNSO councilors may have viewed the written transcript to inform themselves on the issue, there could be some misunderstandings. I am headed to the Prioritization Draw today and have some other deadlines. I will check back into this list tomorrow. Again, I am awaiting further direction from IPC leadership with respect to this matter. Thank you, Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] Received: Sunday, 16 Dec 2012, 8:23am To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; marika.konings at icann.org [marika.konings at icann.org]; Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com] Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Thanks, Marika - perhaps using the term "interim status report" conveys more than I'd intended to suggest in supporting the concept. What I had in mind was simply a statement from the Council when voting to suspend a PDP, giving its reasons for so doing. The intention was to so notify the community - incuding the ICANN Board in cases of Board-directed PDPs - that such an action had been taken. As such, and instead of using the term "interim status report" we could just say "a statement of reasons" from the GNSO Council. 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 at 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" > To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, "randruff at rnapartners.com" >, "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" >, "marika.konings at icann.org" > Date: 12/16/2012 8:29 AM Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Marika, I see the point of broader considerations but think the analogy to a bandaid on an unmanifested wound is very poor. It's actually a bit more like putting on a helmet before riding a bike. See you Monday at the brunch and maybe we can talk further! Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Marika Konings [marika.konings at icann.org] Received: Sunday, 16 Dec 2012, 2:10am To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com]; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, it may be worth pointing out that for every PDP as well as non-PDP, there are regular status updates already provided. For example, the GNSO project list which is updated on a monthly basis (see http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf). Also, each project has their own page on the GNSO web-site which is updated with every milestone activity (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active-groups.htm). In addition, each resolution that is adopted by the GNSO Council contains the rationale for that decision in the 'whereas' clauses (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions). It should also be noted that an 'interim status report' is currently not defined in the PDP Manual (what would need to be in there, who is responsible for preparing it, would it need to be adopted by a vote of the GNSO Council?). Furthermore, in addition to the Board, ICANN Advisory Committees can also request Issue Reports, but they have not been considered in this conversation. As a result, I would really like to encourage the SCI to review this issue in a broader context (if/when/how should PDP status updates be provided to entities other than the GNSO Council during the lifespan of a PDP, taking into account all the different communication tools already in place) as part of the overall review of the PDP, instead of applying a bandaid here to a wound that has not even manifested itself. Best regards, Marika From: , Anne > Date: Saturday 15 December 2012 18:58 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, "randruff at rnapartners.com" >, "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Just a minor note that at this point we were not limiting the interim status report to any "Board-directed PDP". I think the simplest add would be to require an interim status report to the GNSO Council, e.g. "all activities (other than an interim status report to the Council) will halt." Then SCI could recommend that the interim status report be published to the entire community. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] Received: Friday, 14 Dec 2012, 7:22pm To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com] Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I support the concept of an interim report to be put out to the community by the GNSO Council upon its suspension of a PDP; however, I'd like to separate out our actual recommendation (which is to clarify what and when there is considered to be a suspension of a PDP) with our opinion as to either the GNSO Council's relationship with/reaction to Board-directed PDPs or as to appropriate action by the Council in voting for a suspension. I'd therefore suggest a slight modification to our Option 3 - take the language/mention of an interim report out of the sentence containing our recommendation, and either add a new sentence following that, or create an additional, related recommendation, stating that "The SCI recommends that, in cases of suspension of a Board-directed PDP, the GNSO Council issues an interim report stating the reasons for such suspension to the community." Or something along those lines. 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 at 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 >>> "Ron Andruff" 12/14/12 3:13 PM >>> Dear all, Recognizing that I am not yet installed as the Chair of the SCI until our next meeting this coming Thursday (Dec. 20th), yet being responsible for that meeting, (forgive me Wolf-Ulrich) I have two requests: (1) It would be very helpful if all SCI members would look at where we are with the ?Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote? and add your thoughts. The most recent exchanges on that thread are noted below. It appears that we have found a way forward, but this needs to be confirmed by all members. (2) I would also ask everyone to take a few minutes to complete the Survey that Julie sent around again today with her request that we all fill it out and note our experience and thoughts about amendments. She has asked for this to be done by Wednesday, Dec. 19th, so please do take a few minutes if you can spare them during this busy lead up to Christmas so that we can have a productive discussion. Thank you all in advance for attending to these two outstanding items. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. ________________________________ From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 12:44 PM To: 'Ron Andruff'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Ron, I would certainly support that notion in the interest of accountability and transparency. [%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20]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 at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Question for all re: an interim status report to the ICANN Board If I understand Anne?s line of thinking, the concern is about how to deal specifically with Board requested PDPs that are suspended. However, option 3 sounds like we are recommending that the Board receive an interim report whether they have initiated the PDP or not. This is a significant change and would only add more to the Board?s already full plate, in my view. That said, in circumstance where a suspension has been called for, I do see the merit of requesting that Council generate an interim report and post it to inform the entire community of the suspension and reason(s) for which it was suspended. That would be quite logical in the larger scheme of things. Anne, please correct me if I am wrong. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. ________________________________ From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:58 AM To: 'KnobenW at telekom.de'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I would propose a third option: 3. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. [378205215 at 13122012-3268]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 at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From:KnobenW at telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:49 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, from the list I did not understand a clear objection against sending the draft motion to the council with the option of withdrawing it if there can't be found SCI consensus. So I took this responsibility and did it to preserve this chance. I'd like to encourage all of us to continue working at a solution re the footnote. 2 suggestions are at the table: 1. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 1. Suspension is a STATEDtime interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council, subject to ICANN Board review in those cases where the Board has requested GNSO input. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 3. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. Please comment. I wonder what how to proceed if there will be no consensus found at thew time being. On the one hand I've got the impression that a majority would be satisfied with suggestion #1 but also open to find a solution which doesn't cause the need for another public comment period. In case of no consensus we could also - as we did with other items discussed at the SCI - report to the council where we are, that there has been a public comment period successfully finished, but there are still concerns which would prevent the SCI from consensus. The council may then decide how to deal with the (publicly commented) text. I would be thankful hearing your assessment on and under which conditions consensus could still be achieved. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2012 03:13 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I do not believe that this "negative response" mechanism is in accordance with the full consensus process. I also believe I spoke against this at the last reading. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: KnobenW at telekom.de [KnobenW at telekom.de] Received: Wednesday, 12 Dec 2012, 5:06am To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, per its charter, the SCI is expected to take decisions using a 'full consensus' process ("when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings"). Obviously it would be ideal if all members support a certain position. It would also be ideal if we find consensus today which is the deadline for motions before the next counciil meeting. But in order to reduce time pressure I could imagine the option to submit the draft motion today, noting that there are some issues that are still being discussed by the SCI which may result in withdrawal of the motion and agenda item if no agreement can be found. If there is no objection I'll do so accordingly at the end of the day. Thanks for this valuable discussion and for your understanding. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Julie Hedlund > To: Alain Berranger >, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Alain, One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change from the original footnote text. The previous suggestion ? adding the word "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public Comment Forum on new language. As discussed during last Thursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented in the public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that the revised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days. Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longer period, perhaps 30 days. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Alain Berranger > Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, and priority... Alain On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, > wrote: We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, just bring it to the point. First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should be agreed. Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the concern? Or do others have? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't think we are unanimous. 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still concerned. avri On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, > > wrote: > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > wrote: > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position where it >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not >> answered our questions." This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >> 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) 879-4725AAikman at 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 at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >> Konings >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri >>> Doria >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >>> Specifically: >>> >>> " >>> March 212 20120314-1 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >>> Whois >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> " >>> November 2012 20121017-2 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the >>> New gTLD Program. >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >>> >>> " >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >>> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >>> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >>> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >>> No vote is required for such action. >>> " >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>>> Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one >>>> their preemptory decisions. >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >>>> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, > > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anne and all, >>>>> >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation >>>> that the council should follow a related board request. I think >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debate following the >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. >>>>> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>>> Julie? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>>> says, >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an >>>> answer >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >>>>> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and >>>>> the >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>>> "oasis" >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >>>>> at >>>> the >>>> GNSO level. >>>>> >>>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named >>>>> within >>>> the message. >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply >>>>> e-mail and delete the >>>> original message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>>> comment >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>>> >>>>> jse >>>>> >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>>> Inc. >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund > >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >; >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>>> deleted? >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> From: , Anne > >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>> >, >>>> Julie Hedlund > >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>>> If >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would >>>> not apply. >>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed >>>> Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>> clarification to >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold >>>> all >>>> caps: >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change >>>> in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that >>>>> the >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>>> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is >>>>> accepted >>>> by the >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>>> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >>>>> the >>>> SCI >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of >>>> Wednesday, >>>> 12 >>>> December.** >>>>> >>>>> With best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of >>>> termination orsuspension. >>>> The >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>>> support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>>> initiation >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; >>>> or warranting a suspension; or >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack >>>> of volunteer participation. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>>>> termination, >>>> the >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>>>> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > PDP.docx> -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l?employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu?il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From KnobenW at telekom.de Mon Dec 17 13:15:55 2012 From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:15:55 +0100 Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9602474F1@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: All, I think there is still discussion necessary on approaching consensus re this issue. Maybe misunderstandings have to be cleared, maybe some potential consequences of the outcome have to be taken into consideration. The last days I had already conversation about with Ron the new elected SCI chair. We're sharing the view that more time is needed and the draft motion should be withdrawn for the time being. I'm going to suggest this to the council leadership later today at the prep call for the council meeting. Nevertheless we should try to find a solution as soon as possible. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Marika Konings Gesendet: Montag, 17. Dezember 2012 13:51 An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; randruff at rnapartners.com; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >From my recollection, I don't think the PDP-WT ever discussed the possibility of a suspension as it was not a scenario that had occurred (and therefore no one seemed to have thought of it). On the contrary, the need to be able to terminate a PDP was a real issue as the VI PDP had demonstrated that there may be occasions were the GNSO Council may want to officially terminate a PDP instead of forcing it to go through the motions. Suspension became first to the forefront with the 'thick' Whois PDP (after the revised PDP had already been adopted). In relation to your comment 'there is a basic problem of the Board being put in an unworkable position if it does not get answers from the GNSO', it seems to assume that the PDP would not conclude if there is a suspension. I think this is only the case when there is a termination of the PDP, at that moment, there is no further requirement for the PDP to complete its milestones and deliver recommendations to the Board. In the case of suspension, there is merely an interval of time, which needs to be stated in the resolution, during which all activities of the PDP are halted, but after which, they would resume and follow the required steps of the PDP (incl. delivering a Final Report). I could see such a suspension happening, for example, when there are studies that need to be carried out to inform the PDP deliberations and without which the PDP WG cannot make any real progress. In the hypothetical case that the GNSO Council would not want to provide answers to the Board, why wouldn't they just terminate the PDP? If there is no willingness or ability to complete the work, it doesn't seem to make sense to choose for suspension if you also have the option to terminate. Best regards, Marika From: , Anne > Date: Monday 17 December 2012 13:10 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, Marika Konings >, "randruff at rnapartners.com" >, "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Mary and Marika, I think this discussion points out why more thought is needed in this process. To go back to the question I had raised, there is a basic problem of the Board being put in an unworkable position if it does not get answers from the GNSO. A statement of why the PDP is being suspended is not in fact the same as a summary of where the working group finds itself at the time of suspension, the different viewpoints that exist at that time, etc. I believe that there is a lot at stake if ICANN is unable to effectively address GAC advice in particular with timely policy input from the GNSO. There can be many possible reasons for suspension, but a written report of the status should be required at suspension or the GNSO may simply leave the Board (and sometimes the GAC) in limbo. If and when that happens, it provides support for the arguments of those who would vest more control in individual governments. I am honestly beginning to think that the real "bandaid" in this scenario is a suspension provision that is codified in the PDP manual (part of GNSO Operating procedures) without adequate analysis of the consequences. Perhaps a perceived need to codify this should be part of the process that Marika has mentioned when the SCI looks at the entire PDP process in one year. Apparently suspension was not addressed in the PDP working group so maybe we should not be trying to do the job for them. Suspension is not merely a minor subset of termination which has no consequences on policy or organizational effectiveness. In terms of consensus process, I have shared my concerns with IPC leadership over the past ten days and am awaiting their further direction. This is one reason that I say a "negative response" mechanism does not meet the full consensus process. There are also problems with this approach in terms of system downtime, travel, and time zones such as Mary is facing right now. By the way, I should also mention that the version of the December 6 transcript that was posted right after that meeting contained a number of inaccuracies. For example, it credits Marika with saying that it is more important to get it right than it is to be concerned that this has been out for public comment. I doubt she wants to be credited with that statement. There were also inaccuracies in the transcript of what I said. To the extent that GNSO councilors may have viewed the written transcript to inform themselves on the issue, there could be some misunderstandings. I am headed to the Prioritization Draw today and have some other deadlines. I will check back into this list tomorrow. Again, I am awaiting further direction from IPC leadership with respect to this matter. Thank you, Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] Received: Sunday, 16 Dec 2012, 8:23am To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; marika.konings at icann.org [marika.konings at icann.org]; Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com] Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Thanks, Marika - perhaps using the term "interim status report" conveys more than I'd intended to suggest in supporting the concept. What I had in mind was simply a statement from the Council when voting to suspend a PDP, giving its reasons for so doing. The intention was to so notify the community - incuding the ICANN Board in cases of Board-directed PDPs - that such an action had been taken. As such, and instead of using the term "interim status report" we could just say "a statement of reasons" from the GNSO Council. 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 at 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" > To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, "randruff at rnapartners.com" >, "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" >, "marika.konings at icann.org" > Date: 12/16/2012 8:29 AM Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Marika, I see the point of broader considerations but think the analogy to a bandaid on an unmanifested wound is very poor. It's actually a bit more like putting on a helmet before riding a bike. See you Monday at the brunch and maybe we can talk further! Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Marika Konings [marika.konings at icann.org] Received: Sunday, 16 Dec 2012, 2:10am To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com]; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, it may be worth pointing out that for every PDP as well as non-PDP, there are regular status updates already provided. For example, the GNSO project list which is updated on a monthly basis (see http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf). Also, each project has their own page on the GNSO web-site which is updated with every milestone activity (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active-groups.htm). In addition, each resolution that is adopted by the GNSO Council contains the rationale for that decision in the 'whereas' clauses (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions). It should also be noted that an 'interim status report' is currently not defined in the PDP Manual (what would need to be in there, who is responsible for preparing it, would it need to be adopted by a vote of the GNSO Council?). Furthermore, in addition to the Board, ICANN Advisory Committees can also request Issue Reports, but they have not been considered in this conversation. As a result, I would really like to encourage the SCI to review this issue in a broader context (if/when/how should PDP status updates be provided to entities other than the GNSO Council during the lifespan of a PDP, taking into account all the different communication tools already in place) as part of the overall review of the PDP, instead of applying a bandaid here to a wound that has not even manifested itself. Best regards, Marika From: , Anne > Date: Saturday 15 December 2012 18:58 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, "randruff at rnapartners.com" >, "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Just a minor note that at this point we were not limiting the interim status report to any "Board-directed PDP". I think the simplest add would be to require an interim status report to the GNSO Council, e.g. "all activities (other than an interim status report to the Council) will halt." Then SCI could recommend that the interim status report be published to the entire community. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] Received: Friday, 14 Dec 2012, 7:22pm To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com] Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I support the concept of an interim report to be put out to the community by the GNSO Council upon its suspension of a PDP; however, I'd like to separate out our actual recommendation (which is to clarify what and when there is considered to be a suspension of a PDP) with our opinion as to either the GNSO Council's relationship with/reaction to Board-directed PDPs or as to appropriate action by the Council in voting for a suspension. I'd therefore suggest a slight modification to our Option 3 - take the language/mention of an interim report out of the sentence containing our recommendation, and either add a new sentence following that, or create an additional, related recommendation, stating that "The SCI recommends that, in cases of suspension of a Board-directed PDP, the GNSO Council issues an interim report stating the reasons for such suspension to the community." Or something along those lines. 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 at 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 >>> "Ron Andruff" 12/14/12 3:13 PM >>> Dear all, Recognizing that I am not yet installed as the Chair of the SCI until our next meeting this coming Thursday (Dec. 20th), yet being responsible for that meeting, (forgive me Wolf-Ulrich) I have two requests: (1) It would be very helpful if all SCI members would look at where we are with the ?Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote? and add your thoughts. The most recent exchanges on that thread are noted below. It appears that we have found a way forward, but this needs to be confirmed by all members. (2) I would also ask everyone to take a few minutes to complete the Survey that Julie sent around again today with her request that we all fill it out and note our experience and thoughts about amendments. She has asked for this to be done by Wednesday, Dec. 19th, so please do take a few minutes if you can spare them during this busy lead up to Christmas so that we can have a productive discussion. Thank you all in advance for attending to these two outstanding items. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. ________________________________ From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 12:44 PM To: 'Ron Andruff'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Ron, I would certainly support that notion in the interest of accountability and transparency. [%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20]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 at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Question for all re: an interim status report to the ICANN Board If I understand Anne?s line of thinking, the concern is about how to deal specifically with Board requested PDPs that are suspended. However, option 3 sounds like we are recommending that the Board receive an interim report whether they have initiated the PDP or not. This is a significant change and would only add more to the Board?s already full plate, in my view. That said, in circumstance where a suspension has been called for, I do see the merit of requesting that Council generate an interim report and post it to inform the entire community of the suspension and reason(s) for which it was suspended. That would be quite logical in the larger scheme of things. Anne, please correct me if I am wrong. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. ________________________________ From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:58 AM To: 'KnobenW at telekom.de'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I would propose a third option: 3. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. [378205215 at 13122012-3268]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 at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From:KnobenW at telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:49 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, from the list I did not understand a clear objection against sending the draft motion to the council with the option of withdrawing it if there can't be found SCI consensus. So I took this responsibility and did it to preserve this chance. I'd like to encourage all of us to continue working at a solution re the footnote. 2 suggestions are at the table: 1. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 1. Suspension is a STATEDtime interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council, subject to ICANN Board review in those cases where the Board has requested GNSO input. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 3. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. Please comment. I wonder what how to proceed if there will be no consensus found at thew time being. On the one hand I've got the impression that a majority would be satisfied with suggestion #1 but also open to find a solution which doesn't cause the need for another public comment period. In case of no consensus we could also - as we did with other items discussed at the SCI - report to the council where we are, that there has been a public comment period successfully finished, but there are still concerns which would prevent the SCI from consensus. The council may then decide how to deal with the (publicly commented) text. I would be thankful hearing your assessment on and under which conditions consensus could still be achieved. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2012 03:13 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I do not believe that this "negative response" mechanism is in accordance with the full consensus process. I also believe I spoke against this at the last reading. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: KnobenW at telekom.de [KnobenW at telekom.de] Received: Wednesday, 12 Dec 2012, 5:06am To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, per its charter, the SCI is expected to take decisions using a 'full consensus' process ("when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings"). Obviously it would be ideal if all members support a certain position. It would also be ideal if we find consensus today which is the deadline for motions before the next counciil meeting. But in order to reduce time pressure I could imagine the option to submit the draft motion today, noting that there are some issues that are still being discussed by the SCI which may result in withdrawal of the motion and agenda item if no agreement can be found. If there is no objection I'll do so accordingly at the end of the day. Thanks for this valuable discussion and for your understanding. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Julie Hedlund > To: Alain Berranger >, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Alain, One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change from the original footnote text. The previous suggestion ? adding the word "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public Comment Forum on new language. As discussed during last Thursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented in the public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that the revised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days. Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longer period, perhaps 30 days. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Alain Berranger > Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, and priority... Alain On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, > wrote: We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, just bring it to the point. First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should be agreed. Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the concern? Or do others have? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't think we are unanimous. 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still concerned. avri On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, > > wrote: > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > wrote: > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position where it >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not >> answered our questions." This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >> 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) 879-4725AAikman at 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 at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >> Konings >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri >>> Doria >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >>> Specifically: >>> >>> " >>> March 212 20120314-1 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >>> Whois >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> " >>> November 2012 20121017-2 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the >>> New gTLD Program. >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >>> >>> " >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >>> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >>> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >>> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >>> No vote is required for such action. >>> " >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>>> Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one >>>> their preemptory decisions. >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >>>> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, > > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anne and all, >>>>> >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation >>>> that the council should follow a related board request. I think >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debate following the >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. >>>>> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>>> Julie? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>>> says, >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an >>>> answer >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >>>>> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and >>>>> the >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>>> "oasis" >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >>>>> at >>>> the >>>> GNSO level. >>>>> >>>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named >>>>> within >>>> the message. >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply >>>>> e-mail and delete the >>>> original message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>>> comment >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>>> >>>>> jse >>>>> >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>>> Inc. >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund > >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >; >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>>> deleted? >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> From: , Anne > >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>> >, >>>> Julie Hedlund > >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>>> If >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would >>>> not apply. >>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed >>>> Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>> clarification to >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold >>>> all >>>> caps: >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change >>>> in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that >>>>> the >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>>> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is >>>>> accepted >>>> by the >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>>> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >>>>> the >>>> SCI >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of >>>> Wednesday, >>>> 12 >>>> December.** >>>>> >>>>> With best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of >>>> termination orsuspension. >>>> The >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>>> support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>>> initiation >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; >>>> or warranting a suspension; or >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack >>>> of volunteer participation. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>>>> termination, >>>> the >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>>>> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > PDP.docx> -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l?employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu?il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Mon Dec 17 14:46:47 2012 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 06:46:47 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9602474F1@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Anne, I would like to provide a clarification with respect to your statement below: "By the way, I should also mention that the version of the December 6 transcript that was posted right after that meeting contained a number of inaccuracies. For example, it credits Marika with saying that it is more important to get it right than it is to be concerned that this has been out for public comment. I doubt she wants to be credited with that statement. There were also inaccuracies in the transcript of what I said. To the extent that GNSO councilors may have viewed the written transcript to inform themselves on the issue, there could be some misunderstandings." I would like to clarify that the notes I posted to the list after the meeting that included the statement attributed to Marike were not meant to be a "transcript" of the call. The transcript is captured along with the MP3 as a separate and more accurate mechanism. I was simply trying to provide some quick brief notes for reference. As such I provided these based on my best recollection during and after the call and I do think I asked for comments in case I mischaracterized anything. I will, however, in future refrain from taking such notes since they may be inaccurate (since I am not a professional transcriber), and instead the SCI can rely on the MP3 and the transcript for reference. Best regards, Julie From: , Anne > Date: Monday, December 17, 2012 7:10 AM To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, Marika Konings >, Ron Andruff >, "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Mary and Marika, I think this discussion points out why more thought is needed in this process. To go back to the question I had raised, there is a basic problem of the Board being put in an unworkable position if it does not get answers from the GNSO. A statement of why the PDP is being suspended is not in fact the same as a summary of where the working group finds itself at the time of suspension, the different viewpoints that exist at that time, etc. I believe that there is a lot at stake if ICANN is unable to effectively address GAC advice in particular with timely policy input from the GNSO. There can be many possible reasons for suspension, but a written report of the status should be required at suspension or the GNSO may simply leave the Board (and sometimes the GAC) in limbo. If and when that happens, it provides support for the arguments of those who would vest more control in individual governments. I am honestly beginning to think that the real "bandaid" in this scenario is a suspension provision that is codified in the PDP manual (part of GNSO Operating procedures) without adequate analysis of the consequences. Perhaps a perceived need to codify this should be part of the process that Marika has mentioned when the SCI looks at the entire PDP process in one year. Apparently suspension was not addressed in the PDP working group so maybe we should not be trying to do the job for them. Suspension is not merely a minor subset of termination which has no consequences on policy or organizational effectiveness. In terms of consensus process, I have shared my concerns with IPC leadership over the past ten days and am awaiting their further direction. This is one reason that I say a "negative response" mechanism does not meet the full consensus process. There are also problems with this approach in terms of system downtime, travel, and time zones such as Mary is facing right now. By the way, I should also mention that the version of the December 6 transcript that was posted right after that meeting contained a number of inaccuracies. For example, it credits Marika with saying that it is more important to get it right than it is to be concerned that this has been out for public comment. I doubt she wants to be credited with that statement. There were also inaccuracies in the transcript of what I said. To the extent that GNSO councilors may have viewed the written transcript to inform themselves on the issue, there could be some misunderstandings. I am headed to the Prioritization Draw today and have some other deadlines. I will check back into this list tomorrow. Again, I am awaiting further direction from IPC leadership with respect to this matter. Thank you, Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] Received: Sunday, 16 Dec 2012, 8:23am To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; marika.konings at icann.org [marika.konings at icann.org]; Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com] Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Thanks, Marika - perhaps using the term "interim status report" conveys more than I'd intended to suggest in supporting the concept. What I had in mind was simply a statement from the Council when voting to suspend a PDP, giving its reasons for so doing. The intention was to so notify the community - incuding the ICANN Board in cases of Board-directed PDPs - that such an action had been taken. As such, and instead of using the term "interim status report" we could just say "a statement of reasons" from the GNSO Council. 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 at 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" > To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, "randruff at rnapartners.com" >, "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" >, "marika.konings at icann.org" > Date: 12/16/2012 8:29 AM Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Marika, I see the point of broader considerations but think the analogy to a bandaid on an unmanifested wound is very poor. It's actually a bit more like putting on a helmet before riding a bike. See you Monday at the brunch and maybe we can talk further! Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Marika Konings [marika.konings at icann.org] Received: Sunday, 16 Dec 2012, 2:10am To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com]; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, it may be worth pointing out that for every PDP as well as non-PDP, there are regular status updates already provided. For example, the GNSO project list which is updated on a monthly basis (see http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf). Also, each project has their own page on the GNSO web-site which is updated with every milestone activity (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active-groups.htm). In addition, each resolution that is adopted by the GNSO Council contains the rationale for that decision in the 'whereas' clauses (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions). It should also be noted that an 'interim status report' is currently not defined in the PDP Manual (what would need to be in there, who is responsible for preparing it, would it need to be adopted by a vote of the GNSO Council?). Furthermore, in addition to the Board, ICANN Advisory Committees can also request Issue Reports, but they have not been considered in this conversation. As a result, I would really like to encourage the SCI to review this issue in a broader context (if/when/how should PDP status updates be provided to entities other than the GNSO Council during the lifespan of a PDP, taking into account all the different communication tools already in place) as part of the overall review of the PDP, instead of applying a bandaid here to a wound that has not even manifested itself. Best regards, Marika From: , Anne > Date: Saturday 15 December 2012 18:58 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, "randruff at rnapartners.com" >, "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Just a minor note that at this point we were not limiting the interim status report to any "Board-directed PDP". I think the simplest add would be to require an interim status report to the GNSO Council, e.g. "all activities (other than an interim status report to the Council) will halt." Then SCI could recommend that the interim status report be published to the entire community. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] Received: Friday, 14 Dec 2012, 7:22pm To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com] Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I support the concept of an interim report to be put out to the community by the GNSO Council upon its suspension of a PDP; however, I'd like to separate out our actual recommendation (which is to clarify what and when there is considered to be a suspension of a PDP) with our opinion as to either the GNSO Council's relationship with/reaction to Board-directed PDPs or as to appropriate action by the Council in voting for a suspension. I'd therefore suggest a slight modification to our Option 3 - take the language/mention of an interim report out of the sentence containing our recommendation, and either add a new sentence following that, or create an additional, related recommendation, stating that "The SCI recommends that, in cases of suspension of a Board-directed PDP, the GNSO Council issues an interim report stating the reasons for such suspension to the community." Or something along those lines. 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 at 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 >>> "Ron Andruff" 12/14/12 3:13 PM >>> Dear all, Recognizing that I am not yet installed as the Chair of the SCI until our next meeting this coming Thursday (Dec. 20th), yet being responsible for that meeting, (forgive me Wolf-Ulrich) I have two requests: (1) It would be very helpful if all SCI members would look at where we are with the ?Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote? and add your thoughts. The most recent exchanges on that thread are noted below. It appears that we have found a way forward, but this needs to be confirmed by all members. (2) I would also ask everyone to take a few minutes to complete the Survey that Julie sent around again today with her request that we all fill it out and note our experience and thoughts about amendments. She has asked for this to be done by Wednesday, Dec. 19th, so please do take a few minutes if you can spare them during this busy lead up to Christmas so that we can have a productive discussion. Thank you all in advance for attending to these two outstanding items. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. ________________________________ From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 12:44 PM To: 'Ron Andruff'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Ron, I would certainly support that notion in the interest of accountability and transparency. [%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20]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 at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Question for all re: an interim status report to the ICANN Board If I understand Anne?s line of thinking, the concern is about how to deal specifically with Board requested PDPs that are suspended. However, option 3 sounds like we are recommending that the Board receive an interim report whether they have initiated the PDP or not. This is a significant change and would only add more to the Board?s already full plate, in my view. That said, in circumstance where a suspension has been called for, I do see the merit of requesting that Council generate an interim report and post it to inform the entire community of the suspension and reason(s) for which it was suspended. That would be quite logical in the larger scheme of things. Anne, please correct me if I am wrong. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. ________________________________ From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:58 AM To: 'KnobenW at telekom.de'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I would propose a third option: 3. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. [378205215 at 13122012-3268]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 at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From:KnobenW at telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:49 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, from the list I did not understand a clear objection against sending the draft motion to the council with the option of withdrawing it if there can't be found SCI consensus. So I took this responsibility and did it to preserve this chance. I'd like to encourage all of us to continue working at a solution re the footnote. 2 suggestions are at the table: 1. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 1. Suspension is a STATEDtime interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council, subject to ICANN Board review in those cases where the Board has requested GNSO input. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 3. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. Please comment. I wonder what how to proceed if there will be no consensus found at thew time being. On the one hand I've got the impression that a majority would be satisfied with suggestion #1 but also open to find a solution which doesn't cause the need for another public comment period. In case of no consensus we could also - as we did with other items discussed at the SCI - report to the council where we are, that there has been a public comment period successfully finished, but there are still concerns which would prevent the SCI from consensus. The council may then decide how to deal with the (publicly commented) text. I would be thankful hearing your assessment on and under which conditions consensus could still be achieved. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2012 03:13 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I do not believe that this "negative response" mechanism is in accordance with the full consensus process. I also believe I spoke against this at the last reading. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: KnobenW at telekom.de [KnobenW at telekom.de] Received: Wednesday, 12 Dec 2012, 5:06am To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, per its charter, the SCI is expected to take decisions using a 'full consensus' process ("when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings"). Obviously it would be ideal if all members support a certain position. It would also be ideal if we find consensus today which is the deadline for motions before the next counciil meeting. But in order to reduce time pressure I could imagine the option to submit the draft motion today, noting that there are some issues that are still being discussed by the SCI which may result in withdrawal of the motion and agenda item if no agreement can be found. If there is no objection I'll do so accordingly at the end of the day. Thanks for this valuable discussion and for your understanding. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Julie Hedlund > To: Alain Berranger >, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Alain, One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change from the original footnote text. The previous suggestion ? adding the word "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public Comment Forum on new language. As discussed during last Thursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented in the public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that the revised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days. Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longer period, perhaps 30 days. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Alain Berranger > Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, and priority... Alain On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, > wrote: We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, just bring it to the point. First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should be agreed. Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the concern? Or do others have? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't think we are unanimous. 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still concerned. avri On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, > > wrote: > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > wrote: > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position where it >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not >> answered our questions." This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >> 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) 879-4725AAikman at 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 at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >> Konings >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri >>> Doria >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >>> Specifically: >>> >>> " >>> March 212 20120314-1 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >>> Whois >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> " >>> November 2012 20121017-2 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the >>> New gTLD Program. >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >>> >>> " >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >>> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >>> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >>> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >>> No vote is required for such action. >>> " >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>>> Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one >>>> their preemptory decisions. >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >>>> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, > > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anne and all, >>>>> >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation >>>> that the council should follow a related board request. I think >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debate following the >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. >>>>> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>>> Julie? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>>> says, >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an >>>> answer >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >>>>> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and >>>>> the >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>>> "oasis" >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >>>>> at >>>> the >>>> GNSO level. >>>>> >>>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named >>>>> within >>>> the message. >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply >>>>> e-mail and delete the >>>> original message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>>> comment >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>>> >>>>> jse >>>>> >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>>> Inc. >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund > >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >; >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>>> deleted? >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> From: , Anne > >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>> >, >>>> Julie Hedlund > >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>>> If >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would >>>> not apply. >>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed >>>> Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>> clarification to >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold >>>> all >>>> caps: >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change >>>> in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that >>>>> the >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>>> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is >>>>> accepted >>>> by the >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>>> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >>>>> the >>>> SCI >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of >>>> Wednesday, >>>> 12 >>>> December.** >>>>> >>>>> With best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of >>>> termination orsuspension. >>>> The >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>>> support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>>> initiation >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; >>>> or warranting a suspension; or >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack >>>> of volunteer participation. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>>>> termination, >>>> the >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>>>> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > PDP.docx> -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l?employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu?il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Mon Dec 17 14:52:21 2012 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:52:21 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9602474F1@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com>, Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD960247668@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Julie, what I read was posted at the gnso home page as a transcript of the call. That is why I mention the possible misunderstanding by a gnso counselor. Thanks for all your hard work. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] Received: Monday, 17 Dec 2012, 7:46am To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com] CC: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Anne, I would like to provide a clarification with respect to your statement below: "By the way, I should also mention that the version of the December 6 transcript that was posted right after that meeting contained a number of inaccuracies. For example, it credits Marika with saying that it is more important to get it right than it is to be concerned that this has been out for public comment. I doubt she wants to be credited with that statement. There were also inaccuracies in the transcript of what I said. To the extent that GNSO councilors may have viewed the written transcript to inform themselves on the issue, there could be some misunderstandings." I would like to clarify that the notes I posted to the list after the meeting that included the statement attributed to Marike were not meant to be a "transcript" of the call. The transcript is captured along with the MP3 as a separate and more accurate mechanism. I was simply trying to provide some quick brief notes for reference. As such I provided these based on my best recollection during and after the call and I do think I asked for comments in case I mischaracterized anything. I will, however, in future refrain from taking such notes since they may be inaccurate (since I am not a professional transcriber), and instead the SCI can rely on the MP3 and the transcript for reference. Best regards, Julie From: , Anne > Date: Monday, December 17, 2012 7:10 AM To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, Marika Konings >, Ron Andruff >, "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Mary and Marika, I think this discussion points out why more thought is needed in this process. To go back to the question I had raised, there is a basic problem of the Board being put in an unworkable position if it does not get answers from the GNSO. A statement of why the PDP is being suspended is not in fact the same as a summary of where the working group finds itself at the time of suspension, the different viewpoints that exist at that time, etc. I believe that there is a lot at stake if ICANN is unable to effectively address GAC advice in particular with timely policy input from the GNSO. There can be many possible reasons for suspension, but a written report of the status should be required at suspension or the GNSO may simply leave the Board (and sometimes the GAC) in limbo. If and when that happens, it provides support for the arguments of those who would vest more control in individual governments. I am honestly beginning to think that the real "bandaid" in this scenario is a suspension provision that is codified in the PDP manual (part of GNSO Operating procedures) without adequate analysis of the consequences. Perhaps a perceived need to codify this should be part of the process that Marika has mentioned when the SCI looks at the entire PDP process in one year. Apparently suspension was not addressed in the PDP working group so maybe we should not be trying to do the job for them. Suspension is not merely a minor subset of termination which has no consequences on policy or organizational effectiveness. In terms of consensus process, I have shared my concerns with IPC leadership over the past ten days and am awaiting their further direction. This is one reason that I say a "negative response" mechanism does not meet the full consensus process. There are also problems with this approach in terms of system downtime, travel, and time zones such as Mary is facing right now. By the way, I should also mention that the version of the December 6 transcript that was posted right after that meeting contained a number of inaccuracies. For example, it credits Marika with saying that it is more important to get it right than it is to be concerned that this has been out for public comment. I doubt she wants to be credited with that statement. There were also inaccuracies in the transcript of what I said. To the extent that GNSO councilors may have viewed the written transcript to inform themselves on the issue, there could be some misunderstandings. I am headed to the Prioritization Draw today and have some other deadlines. I will check back into this list tomorrow. Again, I am awaiting further direction from IPC leadership with respect to this matter. Thank you, Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] Received: Sunday, 16 Dec 2012, 8:23am To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; marika.konings at icann.org [marika.konings at icann.org]; Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com] Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Thanks, Marika - perhaps using the term "interim status report" conveys more than I'd intended to suggest in supporting the concept. What I had in mind was simply a statement from the Council when voting to suspend a PDP, giving its reasons for so doing. The intention was to so notify the community - incuding the ICANN Board in cases of Board-directed PDPs - that such an action had been taken. As such, and instead of using the term "interim status report" we could just say "a statement of reasons" from the GNSO Council. 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 at 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" > To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, "randruff at rnapartners.com" >, "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" >, "marika.konings at icann.org" > Date: 12/16/2012 8:29 AM Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Marika, I see the point of broader considerations but think the analogy to a bandaid on an unmanifested wound is very poor. It's actually a bit more like putting on a helmet before riding a bike. See you Monday at the brunch and maybe we can talk further! Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Marika Konings [marika.konings at icann.org] Received: Sunday, 16 Dec 2012, 2:10am To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com]; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, it may be worth pointing out that for every PDP as well as non-PDP, there are regular status updates already provided. For example, the GNSO project list which is updated on a monthly basis (see http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf). Also, each project has their own page on the GNSO web-site which is updated with every milestone activity (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active-groups.htm). In addition, each resolution that is adopted by the GNSO Council contains the rationale for that decision in the 'whereas' clauses (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions). It should also be noted that an 'interim status report' is currently not defined in the PDP Manual (what would need to be in there, who is responsible for preparing it, would it need to be adopted by a vote of the GNSO Council?). Furthermore, in addition to the Board, ICANN Advisory Committees can also request Issue Reports, but they have not been considered in this conversation. As a result, I would really like to encourage the SCI to review this issue in a broader context (if/when/how should PDP status updates be provided to entities other than the GNSO Council during the lifespan of a PDP, taking into account all the different communication tools already in place) as part of the overall review of the PDP, instead of applying a bandaid here to a wound that has not even manifested itself. Best regards, Marika From: , Anne > Date: Saturday 15 December 2012 18:58 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, "randruff at rnapartners.com" >, "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Just a minor note that at this point we were not limiting the interim status report to any "Board-directed PDP". I think the simplest add would be to require an interim status report to the GNSO Council, e.g. "all activities (other than an interim status report to the Council) will halt." Then SCI could recommend that the interim status report be published to the entire community. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] Received: Friday, 14 Dec 2012, 7:22pm To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com] Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I support the concept of an interim report to be put out to the community by the GNSO Council upon its suspension of a PDP; however, I'd like to separate out our actual recommendation (which is to clarify what and when there is considered to be a suspension of a PDP) with our opinion as to either the GNSO Council's relationship with/reaction to Board-directed PDPs or as to appropriate action by the Council in voting for a suspension. I'd therefore suggest a slight modification to our Option 3 - take the language/mention of an interim report out of the sentence containing our recommendation, and either add a new sentence following that, or create an additional, related recommendation, stating that "The SCI recommends that, in cases of suspension of a Board-directed PDP, the GNSO Council issues an interim report stating the reasons for such suspension to the community." Or something along those lines. 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 at 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 >>> "Ron Andruff" 12/14/12 3:13 PM >>> Dear all, Recognizing that I am not yet installed as the Chair of the SCI until our next meeting this coming Thursday (Dec. 20th), yet being responsible for that meeting, (forgive me Wolf-Ulrich) I have two requests: (1) It would be very helpful if all SCI members would look at where we are with the ?Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote? and add your thoughts. The most recent exchanges on that thread are noted below. It appears that we have found a way forward, but this needs to be confirmed by all members. (2) I would also ask everyone to take a few minutes to complete the Survey that Julie sent around again today with her request that we all fill it out and note our experience and thoughts about amendments. She has asked for this to be done by Wednesday, Dec. 19th, so please do take a few minutes if you can spare them during this busy lead up to Christmas so that we can have a productive discussion. Thank you all in advance for attending to these two outstanding items. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. ________________________________ From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 12:44 PM To: 'Ron Andruff'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Ron, I would certainly support that notion in the interest of accountability and transparency. [%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20]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 at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Question for all re: an interim status report to the ICANN Board If I understand Anne?s line of thinking, the concern is about how to deal specifically with Board requested PDPs that are suspended. However, option 3 sounds like we are recommending that the Board receive an interim report whether they have initiated the PDP or not. This is a significant change and would only add more to the Board?s already full plate, in my view. That said, in circumstance where a suspension has been called for, I do see the merit of requesting that Council generate an interim report and post it to inform the entire community of the suspension and reason(s) for which it was suspended. That would be quite logical in the larger scheme of things. Anne, please correct me if I am wrong. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. ________________________________ From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:58 AM To: 'KnobenW at telekom.de'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I would propose a third option: 3. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. [378205215 at 13122012-3268]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 at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From:KnobenW at telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:49 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, from the list I did not understand a clear objection against sending the draft motion to the council with the option of withdrawing it if there can't be found SCI consensus. So I took this responsibility and did it to preserve this chance. I'd like to encourage all of us to continue working at a solution re the footnote. 2 suggestions are at the table: 1. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 1. Suspension is a STATEDtime interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council, subject to ICANN Board review in those cases where the Board has requested GNSO input. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 3. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. Please comment. I wonder what how to proceed if there will be no consensus found at thew time being. On the one hand I've got the impression that a majority would be satisfied with suggestion #1 but also open to find a solution which doesn't cause the need for another public comment period. In case of no consensus we could also - as we did with other items discussed at the SCI - report to the council where we are, that there has been a public comment period successfully finished, but there are still concerns which would prevent the SCI from consensus. The council may then decide how to deal with the (publicly commented) text. I would be thankful hearing your assessment on and under which conditions consensus could still be achieved. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2012 03:13 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I do not believe that this "negative response" mechanism is in accordance with the full consensus process. I also believe I spoke against this at the last reading. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: KnobenW at telekom.de [KnobenW at telekom.de] Received: Wednesday, 12 Dec 2012, 5:06am To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, per its charter, the SCI is expected to take decisions using a 'full consensus' process ("when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings"). Obviously it would be ideal if all members support a certain position. It would also be ideal if we find consensus today which is the deadline for motions before the next counciil meeting. But in order to reduce time pressure I could imagine the option to submit the draft motion today, noting that there are some issues that are still being discussed by the SCI which may result in withdrawal of the motion and agenda item if no agreement can be found. If there is no objection I'll do so accordingly at the end of the day. Thanks for this valuable discussion and for your understanding. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Julie Hedlund > To: Alain Berranger >, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Alain, One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change from the original footnote text. The previous suggestion ? adding the word "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public Comment Forum on new language. As discussed during last Thursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented in the public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that the revised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days. Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longer period, perhaps 30 days. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Alain Berranger > Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, and priority... Alain On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, > wrote: We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, just bring it to the point. First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should be agreed. Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the concern? Or do others have? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't think we are unanimous. 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still concerned. avri On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, > > wrote: > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > wrote: > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position where it >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not >> answered our questions." This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >> 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) 879-4725AAikman at 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 at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >> Konings >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri >>> Doria >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >>> Specifically: >>> >>> " >>> March 212 20120314-1 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >>> Whois >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> " >>> November 2012 20121017-2 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the >>> New gTLD Program. >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >>> >>> " >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >>> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >>> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >>> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >>> No vote is required for such action. >>> " >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>>> Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one >>>> their preemptory decisions. >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >>>> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, > > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anne and all, >>>>> >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation >>>> that the council should follow a related board request. I think >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debate following the >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. >>>>> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>>> Julie? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>>> says, >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an >>>> answer >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >>>>> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and >>>>> the >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>>> "oasis" >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >>>>> at >>>> the >>>> GNSO level. >>>>> >>>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named >>>>> within >>>> the message. >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply >>>>> e-mail and delete the >>>> original message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>>> comment >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>>> >>>>> jse >>>>> >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>>> Inc. >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund > >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >; >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>>> deleted? >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> From: , Anne > >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>> >, >>>> Julie Hedlund > >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>>> If >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would >>>> not apply. >>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed >>>> Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>> clarification to >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold >>>> all >>>> caps: >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change >>>> in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that >>>>> the >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>>> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is >>>>> accepted >>>> by the >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>>> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >>>>> the >>>> SCI >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of >>>> Wednesday, >>>> 12 >>>> December.** >>>>> >>>>> With best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of >>>> termination orsuspension. >>>> The >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>>> support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>>> initiation >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; >>>> or warranting a suspension; or >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack >>>> of volunteer participation. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>>>> termination, >>>> the >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>>>> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > PDP.docx> -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l?employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu?il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Mon Dec 17 14:57:56 2012 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 06:57:56 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD960247668@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Anne, I apologize if I misunderstood, but that was indeed also exactly what I captured so I thought you were referencing my notes. In any case, we can review the MP3 and correct the transcript accordingly. We do want our transcripts to be as accurate as possible. Also, I think your point is a good one. I am sometimes quick to post notes that I have not correlated with the transcript, but I need to be mindful that the archives of our email list also are public. So I need to be sure that I am being as accurate as possible too. Thanks, Julie From: , Anne > Date: Monday, December 17, 2012 9:52 AM To: Julie Hedlund > Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Julie, what I read was posted at the gnso home page as a transcript of the call. That is why I mention the possible misunderstanding by a gnso counselor. Thanks for all your hard work. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] Received: Monday, 17 Dec 2012, 7:46am To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com] CC: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Anne, I would like to provide a clarification with respect to your statement below: "By the way, I should also mention that the version of the December 6 transcript that was posted right after that meeting contained a number of inaccuracies. For example, it credits Marika with saying that it is more important to get it right than it is to be concerned that this has been out for public comment. I doubt she wants to be credited with that statement. There were also inaccuracies in the transcript of what I said. To the extent that GNSO councilors may have viewed the written transcript to inform themselves on the issue, there could be some misunderstandings." I would like to clarify that the notes I posted to the list after the meeting that included the statement attributed to Marike were not meant to be a "transcript" of the call. The transcript is captured along with the MP3 as a separate and more accurate mechanism. I was simply trying to provide some quick brief notes for reference. As such I provided these based on my best recollection during and after the call and I do think I asked for comments in case I mischaracterized anything. I will, however, in future refrain from taking such notes since they may be inaccurate (since I am not a professional transcriber), and instead the SCI can rely on the MP3 and the transcript for reference. Best regards, Julie From: , Anne > Date: Monday, December 17, 2012 7:10 AM To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, Marika Konings >, Ron Andruff >, "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Mary and Marika, I think this discussion points out why more thought is needed in this process. To go back to the question I had raised, there is a basic problem of the Board being put in an unworkable position if it does not get answers from the GNSO. A statement of why the PDP is being suspended is not in fact the same as a summary of where the working group finds itself at the time of suspension, the different viewpoints that exist at that time, etc. I believe that there is a lot at stake if ICANN is unable to effectively address GAC advice in particular with timely policy input from the GNSO. There can be many possible reasons for suspension, but a written report of the status should be required at suspension or the GNSO may simply leave the Board (and sometimes the GAC) in limbo. If and when that happens, it provides support for the arguments of those who would vest more control in individual governments. I am honestly beginning to think that the real "bandaid" in this scenario is a suspension provision that is codified in the PDP manual (part of GNSO Operating procedures) without adequate analysis of the consequences. Perhaps a perceived need to codify this should be part of the process that Marika has mentioned when the SCI looks at the entire PDP process in one year. Apparently suspension was not addressed in the PDP working group so maybe we should not be trying to do the job for them. Suspension is not merely a minor subset of termination which has no consequences on policy or organizational effectiveness. In terms of consensus process, I have shared my concerns with IPC leadership over the past ten days and am awaiting their further direction. This is one reason that I say a "negative response" mechanism does not meet the full consensus process. There are also problems with this approach in terms of system downtime, travel, and time zones such as Mary is facing right now. By the way, I should also mention that the version of the December 6 transcript that was posted right after that meeting contained a number of inaccuracies. For example, it credits Marika with saying that it is more important to get it right than it is to be concerned that this has been out for public comment. I doubt she wants to be credited with that statement. There were also inaccuracies in the transcript of what I said. To the extent that GNSO councilors may have viewed the written transcript to inform themselves on the issue, there could be some misunderstandings. I am headed to the Prioritization Draw today and have some other deadlines. I will check back into this list tomorrow. Again, I am awaiting further direction from IPC leadership with respect to this matter. Thank you, Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] Received: Sunday, 16 Dec 2012, 8:23am To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; marika.konings at icann.org [marika.konings at icann.org]; Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com] Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Thanks, Marika - perhaps using the term "interim status report" conveys more than I'd intended to suggest in supporting the concept. What I had in mind was simply a statement from the Council when voting to suspend a PDP, giving its reasons for so doing. The intention was to so notify the community - incuding the ICANN Board in cases of Board-directed PDPs - that such an action had been taken. As such, and instead of using the term "interim status report" we could just say "a statement of reasons" from the GNSO Council. 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 at 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" > To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, "randruff at rnapartners.com" >, "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" >, "marika.konings at icann.org" > Date: 12/16/2012 8:29 AM Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Marika, I see the point of broader considerations but think the analogy to a bandaid on an unmanifested wound is very poor. It's actually a bit more like putting on a helmet before riding a bike. See you Monday at the brunch and maybe we can talk further! Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Marika Konings [marika.konings at icann.org] Received: Sunday, 16 Dec 2012, 2:10am To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com]; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, it may be worth pointing out that for every PDP as well as non-PDP, there are regular status updates already provided. For example, the GNSO project list which is updated on a monthly basis (see http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf). Also, each project has their own page on the GNSO web-site which is updated with every milestone activity (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active-groups.htm). In addition, each resolution that is adopted by the GNSO Council contains the rationale for that decision in the 'whereas' clauses (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions). It should also be noted that an 'interim status report' is currently not defined in the PDP Manual (what would need to be in there, who is responsible for preparing it, would it need to be adopted by a vote of the GNSO Council?). Furthermore, in addition to the Board, ICANN Advisory Committees can also request Issue Reports, but they have not been considered in this conversation. As a result, I would really like to encourage the SCI to review this issue in a broader context (if/when/how should PDP status updates be provided to entities other than the GNSO Council during the lifespan of a PDP, taking into account all the different communication tools already in place) as part of the overall review of the PDP, instead of applying a bandaid here to a wound that has not even manifested itself. Best regards, Marika From: , Anne > Date: Saturday 15 December 2012 18:58 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, "randruff at rnapartners.com" >, "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Just a minor note that at this point we were not limiting the interim status report to any "Board-directed PDP". I think the simplest add would be to require an interim status report to the GNSO Council, e.g. "all activities (other than an interim status report to the Council) will halt." Then SCI could recommend that the interim status report be published to the entire community. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] Received: Friday, 14 Dec 2012, 7:22pm To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com] Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I support the concept of an interim report to be put out to the community by the GNSO Council upon its suspension of a PDP; however, I'd like to separate out our actual recommendation (which is to clarify what and when there is considered to be a suspension of a PDP) with our opinion as to either the GNSO Council's relationship with/reaction to Board-directed PDPs or as to appropriate action by the Council in voting for a suspension. I'd therefore suggest a slight modification to our Option 3 - take the language/mention of an interim report out of the sentence containing our recommendation, and either add a new sentence following that, or create an additional, related recommendation, stating that "The SCI recommends that, in cases of suspension of a Board-directed PDP, the GNSO Council issues an interim report stating the reasons for such suspension to the community." Or something along those lines. 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 at 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 >>> "Ron Andruff" 12/14/12 3:13 PM >>> Dear all, Recognizing that I am not yet installed as the Chair of the SCI until our next meeting this coming Thursday (Dec. 20th), yet being responsible for that meeting, (forgive me Wolf-Ulrich) I have two requests: (1) It would be very helpful if all SCI members would look at where we are with the ?Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote? and add your thoughts. The most recent exchanges on that thread are noted below. It appears that we have found a way forward, but this needs to be confirmed by all members. (2) I would also ask everyone to take a few minutes to complete the Survey that Julie sent around again today with her request that we all fill it out and note our experience and thoughts about amendments. She has asked for this to be done by Wednesday, Dec. 19th, so please do take a few minutes if you can spare them during this busy lead up to Christmas so that we can have a productive discussion. Thank you all in advance for attending to these two outstanding items. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. ________________________________ From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 12:44 PM To: 'Ron Andruff'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Ron, I would certainly support that notion in the interest of accountability and transparency. [%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20]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 at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Question for all re: an interim status report to the ICANN Board If I understand Anne?s line of thinking, the concern is about how to deal specifically with Board requested PDPs that are suspended. However, option 3 sounds like we are recommending that the Board receive an interim report whether they have initiated the PDP or not. This is a significant change and would only add more to the Board?s already full plate, in my view. That said, in circumstance where a suspension has been called for, I do see the merit of requesting that Council generate an interim report and post it to inform the entire community of the suspension and reason(s) for which it was suspended. That would be quite logical in the larger scheme of things. Anne, please correct me if I am wrong. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. ________________________________ From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:58 AM To: 'KnobenW at telekom.de'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I would propose a third option: 3. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. [378205215 at 13122012-3268]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 at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From:KnobenW at telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:49 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, from the list I did not understand a clear objection against sending the draft motion to the council with the option of withdrawing it if there can't be found SCI consensus. So I took this responsibility and did it to preserve this chance. I'd like to encourage all of us to continue working at a solution re the footnote. 2 suggestions are at the table: 1. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 1. Suspension is a STATEDtime interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council, subject to ICANN Board review in those cases where the Board has requested GNSO input. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 3. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. Please comment. I wonder what how to proceed if there will be no consensus found at thew time being. On the one hand I've got the impression that a majority would be satisfied with suggestion #1 but also open to find a solution which doesn't cause the need for another public comment period. In case of no consensus we could also - as we did with other items discussed at the SCI - report to the council where we are, that there has been a public comment period successfully finished, but there are still concerns which would prevent the SCI from consensus. The council may then decide how to deal with the (publicly commented) text. I would be thankful hearing your assessment on and under which conditions consensus could still be achieved. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2012 03:13 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I do not believe that this "negative response" mechanism is in accordance with the full consensus process. I also believe I spoke against this at the last reading. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: KnobenW at telekom.de [KnobenW at telekom.de] Received: Wednesday, 12 Dec 2012, 5:06am To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, per its charter, the SCI is expected to take decisions using a 'full consensus' process ("when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings"). Obviously it would be ideal if all members support a certain position. It would also be ideal if we find consensus today which is the deadline for motions before the next counciil meeting. But in order to reduce time pressure I could imagine the option to submit the draft motion today, noting that there are some issues that are still being discussed by the SCI which may result in withdrawal of the motion and agenda item if no agreement can be found. If there is no objection I'll do so accordingly at the end of the day. Thanks for this valuable discussion and for your understanding. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Julie Hedlund > To: Alain Berranger >, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Alain, One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change from the original footnote text. The previous suggestion ? adding the word "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public Comment Forum on new language. As discussed during last Thursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented in the public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that the revised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days. Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longer period, perhaps 30 days. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Alain Berranger > Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, and priority... Alain On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, > wrote: We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, just bring it to the point. First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should be agreed. Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the concern? Or do others have? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't think we are unanimous. 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still concerned. avri On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, > > wrote: > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > wrote: > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position where it >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not >> answered our questions." This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >> 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) 879-4725AAikman at 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 at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >> Konings >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" > wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri >>> Doria >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >>> Specifically: >>> >>> " >>> March 212 20120314-1 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >>> Whois >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> " >>> November 2012 20121017-2 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the >>> New gTLD Program. >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >>> >>> " >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >>> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >>> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >>> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >>> No vote is required for such action. >>> " >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>>> Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one >>>> their preemptory decisions. >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >>>> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, > > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anne and all, >>>>> >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation >>>> that the council should follow a related board request. I think >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debate following the >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. >>>>> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>>> Julie? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>>> says, >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an >>>> answer >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >>>>> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and >>>>> the >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>>> "oasis" >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >>>>> at >>>> the >>>> GNSO level. >>>>> >>>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named >>>>> within >>>> the message. >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply >>>>> e-mail and delete the >>>> original message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>>> comment >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>>> >>>>> jse >>>>> >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>>> Inc. >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund > >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >; >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>>> deleted? >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> From: , Anne > >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>> >, >>>> Julie Hedlund > >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>>> If >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would >>>> not apply. >>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed >>>> Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>> clarification to >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold >>>> all >>>> caps: >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change >>>> in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that >>>>> the >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>>> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is >>>>> accepted >>>> by the >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>>> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >>>>> the >>>> SCI >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of >>>> Wednesday, >>>> 12 >>>> December.** >>>>> >>>>> With best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of >>>> termination orsuspension. >>>> The >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>>> support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>>> initiation >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; >>>> or warranting a suspension; or >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack >>>> of volunteer participation. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>>>> termination, >>>> the >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>>>> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > PDP.docx> -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l?employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu?il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Mon Dec 17 17:48:46 2012 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:48:46 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9602474F1@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Thanks for your clarifications, Anne. I note that you are looking to IPC leadership for input on this matter and hope that you will receive that by Thursday for our call. That would be very helpful. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff President RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10001 + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11 _____ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 7:11 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; marika.konings at icann.org; randruff at rnapartners.com; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Mary and Marika, I think this discussion points out why more thought is needed in this process. To go back to the question I had raised, there is a basic problem of the Board being put in an unworkable position if it does not get answers from the GNSO. A statement of why the PDP is being suspended is not in fact the same as a summary of where the working group finds itself at the time of suspension, the different viewpoints that exist at that time, etc. I believe that there is a lot at stake if ICANN is unable to effectively address GAC advice in particular with timely policy input from the GNSO. There can be many possible reasons for suspension, but a written report of the status should be required at suspension or the GNSO may simply leave the Board (and sometimes the GAC) in limbo. If and when that happens, it provides support for the arguments of those who would vest more control in individual governments. I am honestly beginning to think that the real "bandaid" in this scenario is a suspension provision that is codified in the PDP manual (part of GNSO Operating procedures) without adequate analysis of the consequences. Perhaps a perceived need to codify this should be part of the process that Marika has mentioned when the SCI looks at the entire PDP process in one year. Apparently suspension was not addressed in the PDP working group so maybe we should not be trying to do the job for them. Suspension is not merely a minor subset of termination which has no consequences on policy or organizational effectiveness. In terms of consensus process, I have shared my concerns with IPC leadership over the past ten days and am awaiting their further direction. This is one reason that I say a "negative response" mechanism does not meet the full consensus process. There are also problems with this approach in terms of system downtime, travel, and time zones such as Mary is facing right now. By the way, I should also mention that the version of the December 6 transcript that was posted right after that meeting contained a number of inaccuracies. For example, it credits Marika with saying that it is more important to get it right than it is to be concerned that this has been out for public comment. I doubt she wants to be credited with that statement. There were also inaccuracies in the transcript of what I said. To the extent that GNSO councilors may have viewed the written transcript to inform themselves on the issue, there could be some misunderstandings. I am headed to the Prioritization Draw today and have some other deadlines. I will check back into this list tomorrow. Again, I am awaiting further direction from IPC leadership with respect to this matter. Thank you, Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] Received: Sunday, 16 Dec 2012, 8:23am To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; marika.konings at icann.org [marika.konings at icann.org]; Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com] Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Thanks, Marika - perhaps using the term "interim status report" conveys more than I'd intended to suggest in supporting the concept. What I had in mind was simply a statement from the Council when voting to suspend a PDP, giving its reasons for so doing. The intention was to so notify the community - incuding the ICANN Board in cases of Board-directed PDPs - that such an action had been taken. As such, and instead of using the term "interim status report" we could just say "a statement of reasons" from the GNSO Council. 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 at 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" To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , "randruff at rnapartners.com" , "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" , "marika.konings at icann.org" Date: 12/16/2012 8:29 AM Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Marika, I see the point of broader considerations but think the analogy to a bandaid on an unmanifested wound is very poor. It's actually a bit more like putting on a helmet before riding a bike. See you Monday at the brunch and maybe we can talk further! Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Marika Konings [marika.konings at icann.org] Received: Sunday, 16 Dec 2012, 2:10am To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com]; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, it may be worth pointing out that for every PDP as well as non-PDP, there are regular status updates already provided. For example, the GNSO project list which is updated on a monthly basis (see http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf). Also, each project has their own page on the GNSO web-site which is updated with every milestone activity (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active-groups.htm). In addition, each resolution that is adopted by the GNSO Council contains the rationale for that decision in the 'whereas' clauses (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions). It should also be noted that an 'interim status report' is currently not defined in the PDP Manual (what would need to be in there, who is responsible for preparing it, would it need to be adopted by a vote of the GNSO Council?). Furthermore, in addition to the Board, ICANN Advisory Committees can also request Issue Reports, but they have not been considered in this conversation. As a result, I would really like to encourage the SCI to review this issue in a broader context (if/when/how should PDP status updates be provided to entities other than the GNSO Council during the lifespan of a PDP, taking into account all the different communication tools already in place) as part of the overall review of the PDP, instead of applying a bandaid here to a wound that has not even manifested itself. Best regards, Marika From: , Anne Date: Saturday 15 December 2012 18:58 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , "randruff at rnapartners.com" , "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Just a minor note that at this point we were not limiting the interim status report to any "Board-directed PDP". I think the simplest add would be to require an interim status report to the GNSO Council, e.g. "all activities (other than an interim status report to the Council) will halt." Then SCI could recommend that the interim status report be published to the entire community. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] Received: Friday, 14 Dec 2012, 7:22pm To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com] Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I support the concept of an interim report to be put out to the community by the GNSO Council upon its suspension of a PDP; however, I'd like to separate out our actual recommendation (which is to clarify what and when there is considered to be a suspension of a PDP) with our opinion as to either the GNSO Council's relationship with/reaction to Board-directed PDPs or as to appropriate action by the Council in voting for a suspension. I'd therefore suggest a slight modification to our Option 3 - take the language/mention of an interim report out of the sentence containing our recommendation, and either add a new sentence following that, or create an additional, related recommendation, stating that "The SCI recommends that, in cases of suspension of a Board-directed PDP, the GNSO Council issues an interim report stating the reasons for such suspension to the community." Or something along those lines. 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 at 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 >>> "Ron Andruff" 12/14/12 3:13 PM >>> Dear all, Recognizing that I am not yet installed as the Chair of the SCI until our next meeting this coming Thursday (Dec. 20th), yet being responsible for that meeting, (forgive me Wolf-Ulrich) I have two requests: (1) It would be very helpful if all SCI members would look at where we are with the ?Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote? and add your thoughts. The most recent exchanges on that thread are noted below. It appears that we have found a way forward, but this needs to be confirmed by all members. (2) I would also ask everyone to take a few minutes to complete the Survey that Julie sent around again today with her request that we all fill it out and note our experience and thoughts about amendments. She has asked for this to be done by Wednesday, Dec. 19th, so please do take a few minutes if you can spare them during this busy lead up to Christmas so that we can have a productive discussion. Thank you all in advance for attending to these two outstanding items. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. _____ From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 12:44 PM To: 'Ron Andruff'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Ron, I would certainly support that notion in the interest of accountability and transparency. 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 at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. _____ From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Question for all re: an interim status report to the ICANN Board If I understand Anne?s line of thinking, the concern is about how to deal specifically with Board requested PDPs that are suspended. However, option 3 sounds like we are recommending that the Board receive an interim report whether they have initiated the PDP or not. This is a significant change and would only add more to the Board?s already full plate, in my view. That said, in circumstance where a suspension has been called for, I do see the merit of requesting that Council generate an interim report and post it to inform the entire community of the suspension and reason(s) for which it was suspended. That would be quite logical in the larger scheme of things. Anne, please correct me if I am wrong. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. _____ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:58 AM To: 'KnobenW at telekom.de'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I would propose a third option: 3. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 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 at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. _____ From: KnobenW at telekom.de [ mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:49 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, from the list I did not understand a clear objection against sending the draft motion to the council with the option of withdrawing it if there can't be found SCI consensus. So I took this responsibility and did it to preserve this chance. I'd like to encourage all of us to continue working at a solution re the footnote. 2 suggestions are at the table: 1. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 2. Suspension is a STATEDtime interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council, subject to ICANN Board review in those cases where the Board has requested GNSO input. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. 3. Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. Please comment. I wonder what how to proceed if there will be no consensus found at thew time being. On the one hand I've got the impression that a majority would be satisfied with suggestion #1 but also open to find a solution which doesn't cause the need for another public comment period. In case of no consensus we could also - as we did with other items discussed at the SCI - report to the council where we are, that there has been a public comment period successfully finished, but there are still concerns which would prevent the SCI from consensus. The council may then decide how to deal with the (publicly commented) text. I would be thankful hearing your assessment on and under which conditions consensus could still be achieved. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [ mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2012 03:13 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote I do not believe that this "negative response" mechanism is in accordance with the full consensus process. I also believe I spoke against this at the last reading. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: KnobenW at telekom.de [ KnobenW at telekom.de] Received: Wednesday, 12 Dec 2012, 5:06am To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [ gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote All, per its charter, the SCI is expected to take decisions using a 'full consensus' process ("when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings"). Obviously it would be ideal if all members support a certain position. It would also be ideal if we find consensus today which is the deadline for motions before the next counciil meeting. But in order to reduce time pressure I could imagine the option to submit the draft motion today, noting that there are some issues that are still being discussed by the SCI which may result in withdrawal of the motion and agenda item if no agreement can be found. If there is no objection I'll do so accordingly at the end of the day. Thanks for this valuable discussion and for your understanding. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Julie Hedlund To: Alain Berranger , "KnobenW at telekom.de" Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" , "avri at acm.org" , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Alain, One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change from the original footnote text. The previous suggestion ? adding the word "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public Comment Forum on new language. As discussed during last Thursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented in the public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that the revised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days. Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longer period, perhaps 30 days. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Alain Berranger Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" , "avri at acm.org" , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, and priority... Alain On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, wrote: We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, just bring it to the point. First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should be agreed. Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the concern? Or do others have? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. I don't think we are unanimous. 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still concerned. avri On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, wrote: > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" wrote: > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. Whether or not the Board calls >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to "scope, >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or >> suspension? We should not leave the Board in the position where it >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not >> answered our questions." This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >> 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 at 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 at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >> Konings >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which >> the GNSO Council can consult with the Board to provide information >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri >>> Doria >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. Had the Board asked for >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >>> Specifically: >>> >>> " >>> March 212 20120314-1 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >>> Whois >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> " >>> November 2012 20121017-2 >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the >>> New gTLD Program. >>> >>> .... >>> " >>> >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >>> >>> " >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >>> >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >>> >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >>> >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >>> No vote is required for such action. >>> " >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>>> >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit >>>> policy that has been developed through the bottom up process into >>>> rule by way of resolution. Although the history of the Board's >>>> actions to date might prove otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >>>> environment we should expect the Board to conform to ICANN's basic >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ronald N. Andruff >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>>> Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>>> suspended a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect >>>> they would either wait, question the postponement, or make one >>>> their preemptory decisions. >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >>>> though they can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >>>> point, and in any case think it is a separate issue from the >>>> suspension mechanism. All other PDPs are g-council decsions, even >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ACs. >>>> >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anne and all, >>>>> >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation >>>> that the council should follow a related board request. I think >>>> this could be the case depending on a council debate following the >>>> board request but there is no obligation to do so. >>>>> >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>>> Julie? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>>> says, >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an >>>> answer >>>> - go back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? >>>>> >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and >>>>> the >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>>> "oasis" >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>> increases to take control away from ICANN. >>>>> >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >>>>> at >>>> the >>>> GNSO level. >>>>> >>>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named >>>>> within >>>> the message. >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply >>>>> e-mail and delete the >>>> original message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>>> comment >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>>> >>>>> jse >>>>> >>>>> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>>> Inc. >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" ; >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>>> deleted? >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or >>>> schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> From: , Anne >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>> , >>>> Julie Hedlund >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>>> If >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would >>>> not apply. >>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed >>>> Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>> >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>> clarification to >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold >>>> all >>>> caps: >>>>> >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change >>>> in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>> >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that >>>>> the >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>>> >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is >>>>> accepted >>>> by the >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>>> >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >>>>> the >>>> SCI >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of >>>> Wednesday, >>>> 12 >>>> December.** >>>>> >>>>> With best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Julie >>>>> >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>>> >>>>> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a >>>> motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of >>>> termination orsuspension. >>>> The >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>>> premature termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>>> support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and >>>> resources being dedicated to the PDP; >>>>> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>>> initiation >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; >>>> or warranting a suspension; or >>>>> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired >>>> and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack >>>> of volunteer participation. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>>>> termination, >>>> the >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>>>> >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>> temporary >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>> decision of the GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in >>>> milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > PDP.docx> -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l?employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu?il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Tue Dec 18 17:37:01 2012 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 09:37:01 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Agenda for SCI Meeting 20 December Message-ID: Dear SCI members, On behalf of the current Chair, Wolf-Ulrich, and in coordination with our incoming Chair and Vice Chair ? Ron Andruff and Avri Doria, respectively ? here is the agenda for the meeting at 2000 UTC on Thursday, 20 December. Please let us know if you have any questions. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Agenda, SCI Meeting 20 December 2012 1. Roll call (1 min) 2. Turnover to New Chair/Vice Chair (1 min) 3. Statement of Interests (2 min) 4. Approval of the agenda (1 min) 5. Review of SCI Charter: (See Charter at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/3.+Charter) (10 mins): -- Reporting and Attendance -- Annual reviews (wiki) -- Consensus 6. Suspension of a PDP (25 mins) 7. Status update on Working Group survey (15 mins) 8. AOB (5 mins) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jscottevans at yahoo.com Wed Dec 19 00:08:06 2012 From: jscottevans at yahoo.com (J. Scott Evans) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:08:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95DD0B410@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <1355875686.84599.YahooMailNeo@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> This might work. ?Sorry for the radio silence, but I was on jury duty last week and contending with work issues in the after hours. J. Scott ? j. scott evans - ?head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com ________________________________ From: Julie Hedlund To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:50 AM Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi Anne, Perhaps we could go back to an earlier suggestion of yours and amend the footnote accordingly. ?That is, you suggested we could substitute "subject to Board review" in place of "until further notice." ?However, not all PDP suspensions may warrant a Board review because they may not be PDPs that resulted from a Board request. ?So perhaps we could say, "subject to review by the ICANN Board in those cases where they Board has requested a PDP" or something like that. It seems that change could address the issue that the Board should have the opportunity to review a suspension on a PDP it has requested and could ask for a specific report from the Council accordingly. ?Perhaps we don't need to specify that the GNSO Council must provide a report, or the terms of a report, but could leave it up to the Board as to what they would wish to request. I'm not sure the change is minor enough to avoid a public comment process, but that is for the SCI and the Council to decide. Just a suggestion. With best regards, Julie From: , Anne Date: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 1:47 PM To: Marika Konings , Julie Hedlund , Alain Berranger , Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: "avri at acm.org" , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Marika, This sounds quite complicated to me and could perhaps serve as the topic of its own PDP on ?organizational behavior.? All I was really suggesting is that if a PDP is suspended and it involves a topic where the Board needs answers or initiated it somehow, there should be a written report (or reports) to the Board on the status of the analysis at suspension. 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 at 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: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:31 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Julie Hedlund; Alain Berranger; KnobenW at telekom.de Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Anne, reading your comments it seems that your concerns go beyond what may happen in case of the suspension of a PDP and seems to deal more with what procedures should be followed / in place to communicate with other entities such the Board and the GAC on topics of common interest that may be the subject of a PDP (whether initiated by the Board or not). As the SCI will be tasked with reviewing the overall PDP in due time, maybe an alternative approach would be to start collecting topics, like this one, that would feed into the overall review of the GNSO PDP when the SCI decides to kick that off? For example, the SCI could create a wiki page for this purpose where members of the SCI, but also other community members could raise issues that they feel would need to be considered as part of this overall review. Also, by pushing this issue a bit further down the tracks, it is also likely that the SCI will have some concrete data points by reviewing how this has been handled by the GNSO Council as there are now two PDPs underway that have been requested by the Board, in order to determine whether additional procedures or guidance is required. This issue may benefit from a more holistic approach instead of trying to shoehorn it into the issue of suspension of a PDP (which has been clarified to mean for a defined time period following which it would continue again). Just a suggestion. Best regards, Marika From: , Anne Date: Wednesday 12 December 2012 18:45 To: Julie Hedlund , Alain Berranger , "KnobenW at telekom.de" Cc: Avri Doria , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Thank you, Wolf.? I am still trying to come up with language that addresses this concern but that does not create a need for a new public comment period.? It almost sounds as though Marika was saying that it is?implicit that this decision is subject to Board review and communication.? If that is the case, I would propose we substitute "subject to Board review" in place of "until further notice" in the footnote.? It does seem to me, however, that the whole issue of organizational effectiveness is an appropriate topic for SCI.? I noted that in the GNSO agenda that was published, an issue was raised as to how to respond to a GAC letter asking why the GNSO had initiated a PDP with respect to a topic that the GAC viewed as simple to implement.? ? It seems to me that if suspension occurs, the GNSO should be required to provide a full report of positions?and/or reasons for?suspension to the Board in the case where the Board?has asked for Answers or for an Issue Report that resulted in a GNSO PDP or initiated the PDP itself pursuant to the ByLaws.??? The example Marika gave was Vertical Integration.? The discipline of preparing such a report is that the issues and positions are clarifed for the Board and that allows for them to move forward with a decision or else to decide to wait until the suspension lifts.? My own view is that suspension should not occur until such a report is finalized. If factions within the PDP can't agree on the content of such a final report, then more than one report could issue. ? I think SCI has an opportunity here to help encourage effective organizational behavior among the Board, the GAC, and the GNSO so that deadlocks do? not occur.? I know there is history with respect to the termination of a WhoIs PDP back in 2007.? I also know there is pressure on ICANN to work effectively from outside organizations that may want control of the Internet.? It seems to me that SCI should not be saying "What the Board does when the GNSO suspends is none of our business."? Our business is to evaluate and recommend Improvements to the process when asked to do so.? ? 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 at 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: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 2:24 PM To: Alain Berranger; KnobenW at telekom.de Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Alain, One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change from the original footnote text. ?The previous suggestion ? adding the word "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public Comment Forum on new language. ?As discussed during last Thursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented in the public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that the revised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days. ?Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longer period, perhaps 30 days. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Alain Berranger Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" , "avri at acm.org" , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in?scope, timing,?and priority... Alain On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, wrote: >We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, just bring it to the point. > >First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should be agreed. > >Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the concern? Or do others have? > > > >Best regards >Wolf-Ulrich > > >-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne >Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 >An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > >Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus. ?I don't think we are unanimous. >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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM >To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > >Hi, > >Are we unanimous on this issue? ?I had the impression Anne was still concerned. > >avri > >On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, wrote: > >> Thanks Marika for clarification. >> >> I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. >> >> >> Best regards >> Wolf-Ulrich >> >> >> >> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] >> Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 >> An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; >> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >> >> Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues >> that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also >> examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the >> Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been >> initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: >> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). >> It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in >> the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following >> decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: >> http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" wrote: >> >>> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful. ?Whether or not the Board calls >>> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in >>> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the >>> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to ?"scope, >>> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there >>> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the >>> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is >>> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an >>> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on >>> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a >>> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a >>> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status >>> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed >>> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or >>> suspension? ?We should not leave the Board in the position where it >>> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not >>> answered our questions." ?This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. >>> 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) 879-4725AAikman at 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 at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika >>> Konings >>> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM >>> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>> >>> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the >>> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation >>> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process >>> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a >>> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois >>> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of >>> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions >>> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of >>> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out >>> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no >>> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically >>> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a >>> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which >>> the GNSO ?Council can consult with the Board to provide information >>> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue >>> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO >>> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another >>> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board >>> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result >>> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to >>> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. >>> >>> With best regards, >>> >>> Marika >>> >>> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri >>>> Doria >>>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 >>>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they >>>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. >>>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. >>>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs. ?Had the Board asked for >>>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. >>>> Specifically: >>>> >>>> " >>>> March 212 20120314-1 >>>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' >>>> Whois >>>> >>>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois >>>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 >>>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >>>> >>>> .... >>>> " >>>> >>>> " >>>> November 2012 20121017-2 >>>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >>>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. >>>> >>>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of >>>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of >>>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the >>>> New gTLD Program. >>>> >>>> .... >>>> " >>>> >>>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS >>>> >>>> " >>>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report >>>> >>>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing >>>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. >>>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the >>>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can >>>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, >>>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. >>>> >>>> .... >>>> >>>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP >>>> >>>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: >>>> >>>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, >>>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. >>>> No vote is required for such action. >>>> " >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>>> >>>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP >>>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] >>>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm >>>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I support Avri's comments as well. ?The Board's role is to commit >>>>> policy ?that has been developed through the bottom up process into >>>>> rule by way of ?resolution. ?Although the history of the Board's >>>>> actions to date might prove ?otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN >>>>> environment we should expect the Board ?to conform to ICANN's basic >>>>> principles. >>>>> >>>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards, >>>>> >>>>> RA >>>>> >>>>> Ronald N. Andruff >>>>> RNA Partners, Inc. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >>>>> Doria >>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>>> PDP--Proposed ?Revised Footnote >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever >>>>> suspended ?a PDP that they mandated is an open question. ?I expect >>>>> they would either ?wait, question the postponement, or make one >>>>> their preemptory decisions. >>>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - >>>>> though they ?can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this >>>>> point, and in any case ?think it is a separate issue from the >>>>> suspension mechanism. ?All other PDPs ?are g-council decsions, even >>>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the ?ACs. >>>>> >>>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. >>>>> >>>>> avri >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Anne and all, >>>>>> >>>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council >>>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation >>>>> that the ?council should follow a related board request. I think >>>>> this could be the ?case depending on a council debate following the >>>>> board request but there is ?no obligation to do so. >>>>>> >>>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by >>>>> Julie? >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards >>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von >>>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 >>>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; >>>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>>> >>>>>> This makes sense. ?Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board >>>>> says, >>>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an >>>>> answer >>>>> - go ?back to the drawing board," ?then that is what will happen? >>>>>> >>>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. ?If GNSO can't work effectively and >>>>>> the >>>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's >>>>> "oasis" >>>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure >>>>> increases to ?take control away from ICANN. >>>>>> >>>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up >>>>>> at >>>>> the >>>>> GNSO level. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . >>>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >>>>>> >>>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential >>>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named >>>>>> within >>>>> the message. >>>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or >>>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you >>>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution >>>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited. ?If this >>>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply >>>>>> e-mail and delete the >>>>> original message. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] >>>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM >>>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>>> >>>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public >>>>> comment >>>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. >>>>>> >>>>>> jse >>>>>> >>>>>> j. scott evans - ?head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! >>>>> Inc. >>>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Julie Hedlund >>>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" ; >>>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Anne. ?Then, would you want "until further notice" to be >>>>> deleted? >>>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> Julie >>>>>> >>>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>>> temporary >>>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>>> decision of the ?GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or >>>>> schedule of the PDP is not ?considered a suspension." >>>>>> >>>>>> From: , Anne >>>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM >>>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>>> , >>>>> Julie Hedlund >>>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >>>>>> >>>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? >>>>> If >>>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would >>>>> not apply. >>>>> Anne >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm >>>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >>>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a >>>>> PDP--Proposed >>>>> Revised Footnote >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear SCI members, >>>>>> >>>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a >>>>> clarification to >>>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. >>>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold >>>>> all >>>>> caps: >>>>>> >>>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>>> temporary >>>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>>> decision of the ?GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change >>>>> in milestones or schedule ?of the PDP is not considered a suspension." >>>>>> >>>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that >>>>>> the >>>>> footnote may be viewed in context. >>>>>> >>>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is >>>>>> accepted >>>>> by the >>>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if >>>>>> the >>>>> SCI >>>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of >>>>> Wednesday, >>>>> 12 >>>>> December.** >>>>>> >>>>>> With best regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Julie >>>>>> >>>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>>>>> >>>>>> 15. ? ?Termination of PDP prior to Final Report >>>>>> >>>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the >>>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a >>>>> motion that ?passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of >>>>> termination orsuspension. >>>>> The >>>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a >>>>> premature ?termination or suspension of a PDP: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. ? ? Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to >>>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong >>>>> support ?or a consensus of its members despite significant time and >>>>> resources being ?dedicated to the PDP; >>>>>> 2. ? ? Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the >>>>> initiation >>>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; >>>>> or ?warranting a suspension; or >>>>>> 3. ? ? Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for >>>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired >>>>> and unable ?to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack >>>>> of volunteer ?participation. >>>>>> >>>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its >>>>>> termination, >>>>> the >>>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior >>>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a >>>>> temporary >>>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a >>>>> decision of the ?GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in >>>>> milestones or schedule of ?the PDP is not considered a suspension. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> > PDP.docx> > > > > > -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI,?http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN,?http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l?employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu?il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ ?et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From jscottevans at yahoo.com Wed Dec 19 17:13:40 2012 From: jscottevans at yahoo.com (J. Scott Evans) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:13:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: <8E7C39B0-EAE4-4EB8-B8D5-C21B94D42BCF@acm.org> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD960245E5E@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com>, <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD960246935@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com>,<50CDA1290200005B0009DB17@smtp.law.unh.edu> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9602474F1@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <8E7C39B0-EAE4-4EB8-B8D5-C21B94D42BCF@acm.org> Message-ID: <1355937220.1393.YahooMailNeo@web161006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Dear All: First, I fully support Avri's comment below regarding the need for full consensus and I do not see that we have achieved full consensus on this issue. ?For this reason, unless we resolve the issue on tomorrow's call, I do not think the GNSO is in a position to vote on the proposed motion. Second, I am fully supportive of the points that Anne has raised and I see no reason we could not include provision that requires a statement on why the PDP is being suspended. ?I think that such a statement is a very well thought out point. ?I realize that there are archives of information on the PDP, but the ICANN Board, the GAC and many other stakeholders have a great deal of issues to contend with in the multi-stakeholder model. ?For this reason, I think it would be very helpful to have a clear statement of why the PDP is being suspended. ?I see this as no different from requiring a "stated" time for the suspension. I will not be on the call tomorrow due to a prior commitment. ?For this reason, Anne will be presenting the IPC position as the fully representative. ?I urge everyone to work with Anne to address her concerns. J. Scott ? j. scott evans - ?head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com ________________________________ From: Avri Doria To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 4:43 AM Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, I think that whether we are using positive or negative consensus, once someone raise a concern flag, it is an active consensus, at least with regard to that one person. I can't see us moving forward on this, until everyone is satisfied.? I am certainly not in favro of having the g-council vote on it as it stands. avri On 17 Dec 2012, at 13:10, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > Mary and Marika, I think this discussion points out why more thought is needed in this process. To go back to the question I had raised, there is a basic problem of the Board being put in an unworkable position if it does not get answers from the GNSO. A statement of why the PDP is being suspended is not in fact the same as a summary of where the working group finds itself at the time of suspension, the different viewpoints that exist at that time, etc. I believe that there is a lot at stake if ICANN is unable to effectively address GAC advice in particular with timely policy input from the GNSO. There can be many possible reasons for suspension, but a written report of the status should be required at suspension or the GNSO may simply leave the Board (and sometimes the GAC) in limbo. If and when that happens, it provides support for the arguments of those who would vest more control in individual governments. > > I am honestly beginning to think that the real "bandaid" in this scenario is a suspension provision that is codified in the PDP manual (part of GNSO Operating procedures) without adequate analysis of the consequences. Perhaps a perceived need to codify this should be part of the process that Marika has mentioned when the SCI looks at the entire PDP process in one year. Apparently suspension was not addressed in the PDP working group so maybe we should not be trying to do the job for them. Suspension is not merely a minor subset of termination which has no consequences on policy or organizational effectiveness. > > In terms of consensus process, I have shared my concerns with IPC leadership over the past ten days and am awaiting their further direction. This is one reason that I say a "negative response" mechanism does not meet the full consensus process. There are also problems with this approach in terms of system downtime, travel, and time zones such as Mary is facing right now. > > By the way, I should also mention that the version of the December 6 transcript that was posted right after that meeting contained a number of inaccuracies. For example, it credits Marika with saying that it is more important to get it right than it is to be concerned that this has been out for public comment. I doubt she wants to be credited with that statement. There were also inaccuracies in the transcript of what I said. To the extent that GNSO councilors may have viewed the written transcript to inform themselves on the issue, there could be some misunderstandings. > I am headed to the Prioritization Draw today and have some other deadlines. I will check back into this list tomorrow. Again, I am awaiting further direction from IPC leadership with respect to this matter. > Thank you, > Anne > > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] > Received: Sunday, 16 Dec 2012, 8:23am > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; marika.konings at icann.org [marika.konings at icann.org]; Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com] > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Thanks, Marika - perhaps using the term "interim status report" conveys more than I'd intended to suggest in supporting the concept. What I had in mind was simply a statement from the Council when voting to suspend a PDP, giving its reasons for so doing. The intention was to so notify the community - incuding the ICANN Board in cases of Board-directed PDPs - that such an action had been taken. As such, and instead of using the term "interim status report" we could just say "a statement of reasons" from the GNSO Council. > > 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 at 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" > To: > "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , "randruff at rnapartners.com" , "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" , "marika.konings at icann.org" > Date: > 12/16/2012 8:29 AM > Subject: > Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > Marika, I see the point of broader considerations but think the analogy to a bandaid on an unmanifested wound is very poor. It's actually a bit more like putting on a helmet before riding a bike. See you Monday at the brunch and maybe we can talk further! Anne > > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Marika Konings [marika.konings at icann.org] > Received: Sunday, 16 Dec 2012, 2:10am > To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com]; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > All, it may be worth pointing out that for every PDP as well as non-PDP, there are regular status updates already provided. For example, the GNSO project list which is updated on a monthly basis (see http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf). Also, each project has their own page on the GNSO web-site which is updated with every milestone activity (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active-groups.htm). In addition, each resolution that is adopted by the GNSO Council contains the rationale for that decision in the 'whereas' clauses (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions). > > It should also be noted that an 'interim status report' is currently not defined in the PDP Manual (what would need to be in there, who is responsible for preparing it, would it need to be adopted by a vote of the GNSO Council?). Furthermore, in addition to the Board, ICANN Advisory Committees can also request Issue Reports, but they have not been considered in this conversation. > > As a result, I would really like to encourage the SCI to review this issue in a broader context (if/when/how should PDP status updates be provided to entities other than the GNSO Council during the lifespan of a PDP, taking into account all the different communication tools already in place) as part of the overall review of the PDP, instead of applying a bandaid here to a wound that has not even manifested itself. > > Best regards, > > Marika > > From: , Anne > Date: Saturday 15 December 2012 18:58 > To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , "randruff at rnapartners.com" , "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Just a minor note that at this point we were not limiting the interim status report to any "Board-directed PDP". I think the simplest add would be to require an interim status report to the GNSO Council, e.g. "all activities (other than an interim status report to the Council) will halt." Then SCI could recommend that the interim status report be published to the entire community. Anne > > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] > Received: Friday, 14 Dec 2012, 7:22pm > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com] > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > I support the concept of an interim report to be put out to the community by the GNSO Council upon its suspension of a PDP; however, I'd like to separate out our actual recommendation (which is to clarify what and when there is considered to be a suspension of a PDP) with our opinion as to either the GNSO Council's relationship with/reaction to Board-directed PDPs or as to appropriate action by the Council in voting for a suspension. > > I'd therefore suggest a slight modification to our Option 3 - take the language/mention of an interim report out of the sentence containing our recommendation, and either add a new sentence following that, or create an additional, related recommendation, stating that "The SCI recommends that, in cases of suspension of a Board-directed PDP, the GNSO Council issues an interim report stating the reasons for such suspension to the community." Or something along those lines. > > 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 at 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 > > >>> "Ron Andruff" 12/14/12 3:13 PM >>> > Dear all, >? > Recognizing that I am not yet installed as the Chair of the SCI until our next meeting this coming Thursday (Dec. 20th), yet being responsible for that meeting, (forgive me Wolf-Ulrich) I have two requests: >? > (1) It would be very helpful if all SCI members would look at where we are with the ?Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote? and add your thoughts.? The most recent exchanges on that thread are noted below.? It appears that we have found a way forward, but this needs to be confirmed by all members. >? > (2) I would also ask everyone to take a few minutes to complete the Survey that Julie sent around again today with her request that we all fill it out and note our experience and thoughts about amendments.? She has asked for this to be done by Wednesday, Dec. 19th, so please do take a few minutes if you can spare them during this busy lead up to Christmas so that we can have a productive discussion. >? > Thank you all in advance for attending to these two outstanding items. >? > Kind regards, >? > RA >? > Ronald N. Andruff > RNA Partners, Inc. >? > > From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 12:44 PM > To: 'Ron Andruff'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >? > Ron, I would certainly support that notion in the interest of accountability and transparency. >? > 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 at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman > P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. > This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information > intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. > If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the > agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are > hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or > copying of this communication is prohibited.? If this communication > was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. >? >? > > From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:39 AM > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > Question for all re: an interim status report to the ICANN Board? >? > If I understand Anne?s line of thinking, the concern is about how to deal specifically with Board requested PDPs that are suspended.? However, option 3 sounds like we are recommending that the Board receive an interim report whether they have initiated the PDP or not.? This is a significant change and would only add more to the Board?s already full plate, in my view. >? > That said, in circumstance where a suspension has been called for, I do see the merit of requesting that Council generate an interim report and post it to inform the entire community of the suspension and reason(s) for which it was suspended.? That would be quite logical in the larger scheme of things. >? > Anne, please correct me if I am wrong. >? > Kind regards, >? > RA >? > Ronald N. Andruff > RNA Partners, Inc. >? >? > > From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:58 AM > To: 'KnobenW at telekom.de'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >? > I would propose a third option: > 3.? Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension.? >? >? > 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 at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman > P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. > This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information > intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. > If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the > agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are > hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or > copying of this communication is prohibited.? If this communication > was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. >? >? > > From:KnobenW at telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de] > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:49 AM > To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > All, >? > from the list I did not understand a clear objection against sending the draft motion to the council with the option of withdrawing it if there can't be found SCI consensus. So I took this responsibility and did it to preserve this chance. >? > I'd like to encourage all of us to continue working at a solution re the footnote. 2 suggestions are at the table: > 1.? ? ? Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. > ??? ?? > Suspension is a STATEDtime interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council, subject to ICANN Board review in those cases where the Board has requested GNSO input. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. > 3.? Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension.? >? >? > Please comment. >? > I wonder what how to proceed if there will be no consensus found at thew time being. On the one hand I've got the impression that a majority would be satisfied with suggestion #1 but also open to find a solution which doesn't cause the need for another public comment period. > In case of no consensus we could also - as we did with other items discussed at the SCI - report to the council where we are, that there has been a public comment period successfully finished, but there are still concerns which would prevent the SCI from consensus. The council may then decide how to deal with the (publicly commented) text. >? > I would be thankful hearing your assessment on and under which conditions consensus could still be achieved. > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich >? > > Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2012 03:13 > An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich > Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > I do not believe that this "negative response" mechanism is in accordance with the full consensus process. I also believe I spoke against this at the last reading. Anne > > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > > -----Original Message----- > From: KnobenW at telekom.de [KnobenW at telekom.de] > Received: Wednesday, 12 Dec 2012, 5:06am > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > All, >? > per its charter, the SCI is expected to take decisions using a 'full consensus' process ("when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings"). > Obviously it would be ideal if all members support a certain position. >? > It would also be ideal if we find consensus today which is the deadline for motions before the next counciil meeting. But in order to reduce time pressure I could imagine the option to submit the draft motion today, noting that there are some issues that are still being discussed by the SCI which may result in withdrawal of the motion and agenda item if no agreement can be found. >? > If there is no objection I'll do so accordingly at the end of the day. >? > Thanks for this valuable discussion and for your understanding. >? > Best regards >? > Wolf-Ulrich >? >? >? > From: Julie Hedlund > To: Alain Berranger , "KnobenW at telekom.de" > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" , "avri at acm.org" , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >? > Alain, >? > One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change from the original footnote text.? The previous suggestion ? adding the word "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public Comment Forum on new language.? As discussed during last Thursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented in the public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that the revised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days.? Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longer period, perhaps 30 days. >? > With best regards, >? > Julie >? > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >? > From: Alain Berranger > Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM > To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" , "avri at acm.org" , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >? > Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, and priority... >? > Alain > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, wrote: > > We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, just bring it to the point. > > First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should be agreed. > > Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the concern? Or do others have? > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 > An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > > Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus.? I don't think we are unanimous. > 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > > Hi, > > Are we unanimous on this issue?? I had the impression Anne was still concerned. > > avri > > On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, wrote: > > > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. > > > > > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; > > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: > > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). > > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > > > With best regards, > > > > Marika > > > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" wrote: > > > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful.? Whether or not the Board calls > >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in > >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the > >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to? "scope, > >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there > >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the > >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is > >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an > >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on > >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a > >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a > >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status > >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed > >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or > >> suspension?? We should not leave the Board in the position where it > >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not > >> answered our questions."? This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. > >> 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) 879-4725AAikman at 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 at icann.org > >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika > >> Konings > >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM > >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > >> > >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the > >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation > >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process > >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a > >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois > >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of > >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions > >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of > >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out > >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no > >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically > >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a > >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which > >> the GNSO? Council can consult with the Board to provide information > >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue > >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO > >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another > >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board > >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result > >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to > >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. > >> > >> With best regards, > >> > >> Marika > >> > >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. > >>> > >>> > >>> Best regards > >>> Wolf-Ulrich > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri > >>> Doria > >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 > >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > >>> > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they > >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. > >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. > >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs.? Had the Board asked for > >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. > >>> Specifically: > >>> > >>> " > >>> March 212 20120314-1 > >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' > >>> Whois > >>> > >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois > >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 > >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); > >>> > >>> .... > >>> " > >>> > >>> " > >>> November 2012 20121017-2 > >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the > >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. > >>> > >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of > >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of > >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the > >>> New gTLD Program. > >>> > >>> .... > >>> " > >>> > >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS > >>> > >>> " > >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report > >>> > >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing > >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. > >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the > >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can > >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, > >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. > >>> > >>> .... > >>> > >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP > >>> > >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: > >>> > >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, > >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. > >>> No vote is required for such action. > >>> " > >>> > >>> avri > >>> > >>> > >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > >>> > >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP > >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne > >>>> > >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] > >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm > >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] > >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I support Avri's comments as well.? The Board's role is to commit > >>>> policy? that has been developed through the bottom up process into > >>>> rule by way of? resolution.? Although the history of the Board's > >>>> actions to date might prove? otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN > >>>> environment we should expect the Board? to conform to ICANN's basic > >>>> principles. > >>>> > >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. > >>>> > >>>> Kind regards, > >>>> > >>>> RA > >>>> > >>>> Ronald N. Andruff > >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri > >>>> Doria > >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM > >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >>>> PDP--Proposed? Revised Footnote > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever > >>>> suspended? a PDP that they mandated is an open question.? I expect > >>>> they would either? wait, question the postponement, or make one > >>>> their preemptory decisions. > >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - > >>>> though they? can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this > >>>> point, and in any case? think it is a separate issue from the > >>>> suspension mechanism.? All other PDPs? are g-council decsions, even > >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the? ACs. > >>>> > >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. > >>>> > >>>> avri > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Anne and all, > >>>>> > >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council > >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation > >>>> that the? council should follow a related board request. I think > >>>> this could be the? case depending on a council debate following the > >>>> board request but there is? no obligation to do so. > >>>>> > >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by > >>>> Julie? > >>>>> > >>>>> Best regards > >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von > >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne > >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 > >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; > >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > >>>>> > >>>>> This makes sense.? Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board > >>>> says, > >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an > >>>> answer > >>>> - go? back to the drawing board,"? then that is what will happen? > >>>>> > >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN.? If GNSO can't work effectively and > >>>>> the > >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's > >>>> "oasis" > >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure > >>>> increases to? take control away from ICANN. > >>>>> > >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up > >>>>> at > >>>> the > >>>> GNSO level. > >>>>> > >>>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . > >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. > >>>>> > >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential > >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named > >>>>> within > >>>> the message. > >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or > >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you > >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution > >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited.? If this > >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply > >>>>> e-mail and delete the > >>>> original message. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] > >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM > >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; > >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > >>>>> > >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public > >>>> comment > >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. > >>>>> > >>>>> jse > >>>>> > >>>>> j. scott evans -? head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! > >>>> Inc. > >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund > >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" ; > >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM > >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks Anne.? Then, would you want "until further notice" to be > >>>> deleted? > >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. > >>>>> > >>>>> Best regards, > >>>>> Julie > >>>>> > >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a > >>>> temporary > >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a > >>>> decision of the? GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or > >>>> schedule of the PDP is not? considered a suspension." > >>>>> > >>>>> From: , Anne > >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM > >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > >>>> , > >>>> Julie Hedlund > >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > >>>>> > >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? > >>>> If > >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would > >>>> not apply. > >>>> Anne > >>>>> > >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > >>>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] > >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm > >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] > >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >>>> PDP--Proposed > >>>> Revised Footnote > >>>>> > >>>>> Dear SCI members, > >>>>> > >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a > >>>> clarification to > >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. > >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold > >>>> all > >>>> caps: > >>>>> > >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a > >>>> temporary > >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a > >>>> decision of the? GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change > >>>> in milestones or schedule? of the PDP is not considered a suspension." > >>>>> > >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that > >>>>> the > >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. > >>>>> > >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is > >>>>> accepted > >>>> by the > >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. > >>>>> > >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if > >>>>> the > >>>> SCI > >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of > >>>> Wednesday, > >>>> 12 > >>>> December.** > >>>>> > >>>>> With best regards, > >>>>> > >>>>> Julie > >>>>> > >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > >>>>> > >>>>> 15.? ? Termination of PDP prior to Final Report > >>>>> > >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the > >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a > >>>> motion that? passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of > >>>> termination orsuspension. > >>>> The > >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a > >>>> premature? termination or suspension of a PDP: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1.? ? Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to > >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong > >>>> support? or a consensus of its members despite significant time and > >>>> resources being? dedicated to the PDP; > >>>>> 2.? ? Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the > >>>> initiation > >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; > >>>> or? warranting a suspension; or > >>>>> 3.? ? Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for > >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired > >>>> and unable? to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack > >>>> of volunteer? participation. > >>>>> > >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its > >>>>> termination, > >>>> the > >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior > >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). > >>>>> > >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a > >>>> temporary > >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a > >>>> decision of the? GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in > >>>> milestones or schedule of? the PDP is not considered a suspension. > >>>>> > >>>>> 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. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > PDP.docx> > > > > >? > -- > Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA > Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca > Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca > Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org > NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org > Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ > O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 > Skype: alain.berranger >? >? > AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? > Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l?employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu?il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ? et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. >? > CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE > This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. >? >? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jscottevans at yahoo.com Wed Dec 19 17:22:20 2012 From: jscottevans at yahoo.com (J. Scott Evans) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:22:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote In-Reply-To: <1355937220.1393.YahooMailNeo@web161006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD960245E5E@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com>, <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD960246935@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com>,<50CDA1290200005B0009DB17@smtp.law.unh.edu> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9602474F1@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <8E7C39B0-EAE4-4EB8-B8D5-C21B94D42BCF@acm.org> <1355937220.1393.YahooMailNeo@web161006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1355937740.7359.YahooMailNeo@web161006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Dear All: I have now read further through the voluminous emails I did not have time to read last week and I would like to amend my comments below. ?After reviewing the debate, I want to further support Anne's call for a Interim Status Report on any suspended PDP. ?I see this as going beyond more than a clear statement on the reasoning for suspension and, again, I think it is necessary so that the community can be fully advised on where the work is at the time of suspension and why it is being suspended in one neat summary document. ?Additionally, I see no reason to limit this to any certain type of PDP. ?The simplest solution is to have the same procedure apply to all PDP's initiated by the GNSO Council. J. Scott ? j. scott evans - ?head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com ________________________________ From: J. Scott Evans To: Avri Doria ; "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 9:13 AM Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Dear All: First, I fully support Avri's comment below regarding the need for full consensus and I do not see that we have achieved full consensus on this issue. ?For this reason, unless we resolve the issue on tomorrow's call, I do not think the GNSO is in a position to vote on the proposed motion. Second, I am fully supportive of the points that Anne has raised and I see no reason we could not include provision that requires a statement on why the PDP is being suspended. ?I think that such a statement is a very well thought out point. ?I realize that there are archives of information on the PDP, but the ICANN Board, the GAC and many other stakeholders have a great deal of issues to contend with in the multi-stakeholder model. ?For this reason, I think it would be very helpful to have a clear statement of why the PDP is being suspended. ?I see this as no different from requiring a "stated" time for the suspension. I will not be on the call tomorrow due to a prior commitment. ?For this reason, Anne will be presenting the IPC position as the fully representative. ?I urge everyone to work with Anne to address her concerns. J. Scott ? j. scott evans - ?head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com ________________________________ From: Avri Doria To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 4:43 AM Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote Hi, I think that whether we are using positive or negative consensus, once someone raise a concern flag, it is an active consensus, at least with regard to that one person. I can't see us moving forward on this, until everyone is satisfied.? I am certainly not in favro of having the g-council vote on it as it stands. avri On 17 Dec 2012, at 13:10, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > Mary and Marika, I think this discussion points out why more thought is needed in this process. To go back to the question I had raised, there is a basic problem of the Board being put in an unworkable position if it does not get answers from the GNSO. A statement of why the PDP is being suspended is not in fact the same as a summary of where the working group finds itself at the time of suspension, the different viewpoints that exist at that time, etc. I believe that there is a lot at stake if ICANN is unable to effectively address GAC advice in particular with timely policy input from the GNSO. There can be many possible reasons for suspension, but a written report of the status should be required at suspension or the GNSO may simply leave the Board (and sometimes the GAC) in limbo. If and when that happens, it provides support for the arguments of those who would vest more control in individual governments. > > I am honestly beginning to think that the real "bandaid" in this scenario is a suspension provision that is codified in the PDP manual (part of GNSO Operating procedures) without adequate analysis of the consequences. Perhaps a perceived need to codify this should be part of the process that Marika has mentioned when the SCI looks at the entire PDP process in one year. Apparently suspension was not addressed in the PDP working group so maybe we should not be trying to do the job for them. Suspension is not merely a minor subset of termination which has no consequences on policy or organizational effectiveness. > > In terms of consensus process, I have shared my concerns with IPC leadership over the past ten days and am awaiting their further direction. This is one reason that I say a "negative response" mechanism does not meet the full consensus process. There are also problems with this approach in terms of system downtime, travel, and time zones such as Mary is facing right now. > > By the way, I should also mention that the version of the December 6 transcript that was posted right after that meeting contained a number of inaccuracies. For example, it credits Marika with saying that it is more important to get it right than it is to be concerned that this has been out for public comment. I doubt she wants to be credited with that statement. There were also inaccuracies in the transcript of what I said. To the extent that GNSO councilors may have viewed the written transcript to inform themselves on the issue, there could be some misunderstandings. > I am headed to the Prioritization Draw today and have some other deadlines. I will check back into this list tomorrow. Again, I am awaiting further direction from IPC leadership with respect to this matter. > Thank you, > Anne > > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] > Received: Sunday, 16 Dec 2012, 8:23am > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; marika.konings at icann.org [marika.konings at icann.org]; Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com] > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Thanks, Marika - perhaps using the term "interim status report" conveys more than I'd intended to suggest in supporting the concept. What I had in mind was simply a statement from the Council when voting to suspend a PDP, giving its reasons for so doing. The intention was to so notify the community - incuding the ICANN Board in cases of Board-directed PDPs - that such an action had been taken. As such, and instead of using the term "interim status report" we could just say "a statement of reasons" from the GNSO Council. > > 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 at 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" > To: > "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , "randruff at rnapartners.com" , "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" , "marika.konings at icann.org" > Date: > 12/16/2012 8:29 AM > Subject: > Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > Marika, I see the point of broader considerations but think the analogy to a bandaid on an unmanifested wound is very poor. It's actually a bit more like putting on a helmet before riding a bike. See you Monday at the brunch and maybe we can talk further! Anne > > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Marika Konings [marika.konings at icann.org] > Received: Sunday, 16 Dec 2012, 2:10am > To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com]; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > All, it may be worth pointing out that for every PDP as well as non-PDP, there are regular status updates already provided. For example, the GNSO project list which is updated on a monthly basis (see http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf). Also, each project has their own page on the GNSO web-site which is updated with every milestone activity (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active-groups.htm). In addition, each resolution that is adopted by the GNSO Council contains the rationale for that decision in the 'whereas' clauses (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions). > > It should also be noted that an 'interim status report' is currently not defined in the PDP Manual (what would need to be in there, who is responsible for preparing it, would it need to be adopted by a vote of the GNSO Council?). Furthermore, in addition to the Board, ICANN Advisory Committees can also request Issue Reports, but they have not been considered in this conversation. > > As a result, I would really like to encourage the SCI to review this issue in a broader context (if/when/how should PDP status updates be provided to entities other than the GNSO Council during the lifespan of a PDP, taking into account all the different communication tools already in place) as part of the overall review of the PDP, instead of applying a bandaid here to a wound that has not even manifested itself. > > Best regards, > > Marika > > From: , Anne > Date: Saturday 15 December 2012 18:58 > To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , "randruff at rnapartners.com" , "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > Just a minor note that at this point we were not limiting the interim status report to any "Board-directed PDP". I think the simplest add would be to require an interim status report to the GNSO Council, e.g. "all activities (other than an interim status report to the Council) will halt." Then SCI could recommend that the interim status report be published to the entire community. Anne > > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] > Received: Friday, 14 Dec 2012, 7:22pm > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; Aikman-Scalese, Anne [AAikman at lrlaw.com]; randruff at rnapartners.com [randruff at rnapartners.com] > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > I support the concept of an interim report to be put out to the community by the GNSO Council upon its suspension of a PDP; however, I'd like to separate out our actual recommendation (which is to clarify what and when there is considered to be a suspension of a PDP) with our opinion as to either the GNSO Council's relationship with/reaction to Board-directed PDPs or as to appropriate action by the Council in voting for a suspension. > > I'd therefore suggest a slight modification to our Option 3 - take the language/mention of an interim report out of the sentence containing our recommendation, and either add a new sentence following that, or create an additional, related recommendation, stating that "The SCI recommends that, in cases of suspension of a Board-directed PDP, the GNSO Council issues an interim report stating the reasons for such suspension to the community." Or something along those lines. > > 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 at 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 > > >>> "Ron Andruff" 12/14/12 3:13 PM >>> > Dear all, >? > Recognizing that I am not yet installed as the Chair of the SCI until our next meeting this coming Thursday (Dec. 20th), yet being responsible for that meeting, (forgive me Wolf-Ulrich) I have two requests: >? > (1) It would be very helpful if all SCI members would look at where we are with the ?Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote? and add your thoughts.? The most recent exchanges on that thread are noted below.? It appears that we have found a way forward, but this needs to be confirmed by all members. >? > (2) I would also ask everyone to take a few minutes to complete the Survey that Julie sent around again today with her request that we all fill it out and note our experience and thoughts about amendments.? She has asked for this to be done by Wednesday, Dec. 19th, so please do take a few minutes if you can spare them during this busy lead up to Christmas so that we can have a productive discussion. >? > Thank you all in advance for attending to these two outstanding items. >? > Kind regards, >? > RA >? > Ronald N. Andruff > RNA Partners, Inc. >? > > From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 12:44 PM > To: 'Ron Andruff'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >? > Ron, I would certainly support that notion in the interest of accountability and transparency. >? > 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 at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman > P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. > This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information > intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. > If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the > agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are > hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or > copying of this communication is prohibited.? If this communication > was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. >? >? > > From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:39 AM > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > Question for all re: an interim status report to the ICANN Board? >? > If I understand Anne?s line of thinking, the concern is about how to deal specifically with Board requested PDPs that are suspended.? However, option 3 sounds like we are recommending that the Board receive an interim report whether they have initiated the PDP or not.? This is a significant change and would only add more to the Board?s already full plate, in my view. >? > That said, in circumstance where a suspension has been called for, I do see the merit of requesting that Council generate an interim report and post it to inform the entire community of the suspension and reason(s) for which it was suspended.? That would be quite logical in the larger scheme of things. >? > Anne, please correct me if I am wrong. >? > Kind regards, >? > RA >? > Ronald N. Andruff > RNA Partners, Inc. >? >? > > From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:58 AM > To: 'KnobenW at telekom.de'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >? > I would propose a third option: > 3.? Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension.? >? >? > 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 at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman > P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. > This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information > intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. > If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the > agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are > hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or > copying of this communication is prohibited.? If this communication > was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. >? >? > > From:KnobenW at telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de] > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:49 AM > To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > All, >? > from the list I did not understand a clear objection against sending the draft motion to the council with the option of withdrawing it if there can't be found SCI consensus. So I took this responsibility and did it to preserve this chance. >? > I'd like to encourage all of us to continue working at a solution re the footnote. 2 suggestions are at the table: > 1.? ? ? Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. > ??? ?? > Suspension is a STATEDtime interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council, subject to ICANN Board review in those cases where the Board has requested GNSO input. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. > 3.? Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities (other than an interim status report to the ICANN Board) are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension.? >? >? > Please comment. >? > I wonder what how to proceed if there will be no consensus found at thew time being. On the one hand I've got the impression that a majority would be satisfied with suggestion #1 but also open to find a solution which doesn't cause the need for another public comment period. > In case of no consensus we could also - as we did with other items discussed at the SCI - report to the council where we are, that there has been a public comment period successfully finished, but there are still concerns which would prevent the SCI from consensus. The council may then decide how to deal with the (publicly commented) text. >? > I would be thankful hearing your assessment on and under which conditions consensus could still be achieved. > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich >? > > Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2012 03:13 > An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich > Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > I do not believe that this "negative response" mechanism is in accordance with the full consensus process. I also believe I spoke against this at the last reading. Anne > > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > > -----Original Message----- > From: KnobenW at telekom.de [KnobenW at telekom.de] > Received: Wednesday, 12 Dec 2012, 5:06am > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > All, >? > per its charter, the SCI is expected to take decisions using a 'full consensus' process ("when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings"). > Obviously it would be ideal if all members support a certain position. >? > It would also be ideal if we find consensus today which is the deadline for motions before the next counciil meeting. But in order to reduce time pressure I could imagine the option to submit the draft motion today, noting that there are some issues that are still being discussed by the SCI which may result in withdrawal of the motion and agenda item if no agreement can be found. >? > If there is no objection I'll do so accordingly at the end of the day. >? > Thanks for this valuable discussion and for your understanding. >? > Best regards >? > Wolf-Ulrich >? >? >? > From: Julie Hedlund > To: Alain Berranger , "KnobenW at telekom.de" > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" , "avri at acm.org" , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >? > Alain, >? > One consideration is that if we add that language it is a substantive change from the original footnote text.? The previous suggestion ? adding the word "stated" and deleting "until further notice" --- was deemed by the SCI to be a minor clarification and thus didn't require us to open a Public Comment Forum on new language.? As discussed during last Thursday's meeting, any substantive change to the text that was presented in the public comment period that just ended on 03 December would require that the revised text go out for public comment again at a minimum of 21 days.? Staff pointed out that with the holiday we would probably need a longer period, perhaps 30 days. >? > With best regards, >? > Julie >? > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >? > From: Alain Berranger > Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:41 PM > To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: "AAikman at lrlaw.com" , "avri at acm.org" , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote >? > Can we simply insert that: ... when judged necessary by the Council, the GNSO Chair can clarify with the Board any required change in scope, timing, and priority... >? > Alain > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, wrote: > > We all stick to find consensus. I didn't want to suppress any discussion, just bring it to the point. > > First the wording must be accepted by all of us, then the procedure should be agreed. > > Anne, do you have a suggestion for the wording which could incorporate the concern? Or do others have? > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Aikman-Scalese, Anne > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 17:45 > An: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > > Avri, thanks for sticking up for the process of consensus.? I don't think we are unanimous. > 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:39 AM > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > > Hi, > > Are we unanimous on this issue?? I had the impression Anne was still concerned. > > avri > > On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, wrote: > > > Thanks Marika for clarification. > > > > I'll forward the motion (clear) attached with the revised footnote (redline) to the council list by tomorrows deadline for the 20 Dec council meeting. > > > > > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 10:52 > > An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org; > > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > > PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > > > > Anne, Staff typically provides the Board with status updates on issues > > that are of significant interest to the Board, but there are also > > examples of direct communication between the GNSO Council and the > > Board after the GNSO Council decided to terminate a PDP that had been > > initiated to provide input to the ICANN Board (see for example the Vertical Integration PDP: > > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html). > > It is then up to the Board to decide how to proceed. For example, in > > the case of vertical integration, the Board made the following > > decision, absent GNSO Council recommendations: > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm. > > > > With best regards, > > > > Marika > > > > On 10/12/12 19:19, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" wrote: > > > >> Many thanks, Marika - very helpful.? Whether or not the Board calls > >> its questions a "Request for an Issue Report" that then results in > >> initiation of a PDP seems less important substantively than the > >> reference to continuing consultation with the Board as to? "scope, > >> timing, and priority". This discussion illustrates why I think there > >> has to be some provision for communication with or involvement of the > >> Board in connection with a GNSO vote to suspend a PDP which is > >> commenced as a result of a Board request for "answers" or for an > >> Issue Report. A unilateral suspension by GNSO of a PDP (even on > >> Supermajority vote) where the PDP was initiated as a result of such a > >> Board request, is problematic if the Board needs to act. Is there a > >> provision for providing the Board with a full report as to the status > >> of the PDP and maybe summarizing the differing opinions expressed > >> where no consensus was reached in the event of termination or > >> suspension?? We should not leave the Board in the position where it > >> has to say, "We cannot act because the GNSO has not acted and has not > >> answered our questions."? This is particularly unsatisfactory where the GAC has asked the Board to address an issue. > >> 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) 879-4725AAikman at 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 at icann.org > >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika > >> Konings > >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:05 AM > >> To: KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > >> > >> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the > >> RAA ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation > >> of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process > >> (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a > >> PDP) and the recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois > >> ('hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of > >> collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions > >> to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of > >> a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process'). As pointed out > >> by Avri, for PDPs initiated by the ICANN Board, there is no > >> intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the PDP automatically > >> proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the case of a > >> Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by which > >> the GNSO? Council can consult with the Board to provide information > >> on the scope, timing, and priority of the request for an Issue > >> Report'. In addition to this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO > >> Council meet at every ICANN meeting where there is another > >> opportunity to discuss and/or express concerns with regard to Board > >> requested PDPs. For example, in relation to the RAA PDP, as a result > >> of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO Council it was agreed to > >> 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be included in the PDP. > >> > >> With best regards, > >> > >> Marika > >> > >> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW at telekom.de" wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding. > >>> > >>> > >>> Best regards > >>> Wolf-Ulrich > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > >>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri > >>> Doria > >>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39 > >>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > >>> > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they > >>> have not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP. > >>> The g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers. > >>> These are still g-council initiated PDPs.? Had the Board asked for > >>> the PDP, there never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP. > >>> Specifically: > >>> > >>> " > >>> March 212 20120314-1 > >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' > >>> Whois > >>> > >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois > >>> at its meeting on 22 September 2011 > >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); > >>> > >>> .... > >>> " > >>> > >>> " > >>> November 2012 20121017-2 > >>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the > >>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. > >>> > >>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of > >>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of > >>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the > >>> New gTLD Program. > >>> > >>> .... > >>> " > >>> > >>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS > >>> > >>> " > >>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report > >>> > >>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing > >>> the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. > >>> In the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the > >>> Board should provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can > >>> consult with the Board to provide information on the scope, timing, > >>> and priority of the request for an Issue Report. > >>> > >>> .... > >>> > >>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP > >>> > >>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows: > >>> > >>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council, > >>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. > >>> No vote is required for such action. > >>> " > >>> > >>> avri > >>> > >>> > >>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > >>> > >>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP > >>>> and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne > >>>> > >>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] > >>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm > >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] > >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I support Avri's comments as well.? The Board's role is to commit > >>>> policy? that has been developed through the bottom up process into > >>>> rule by way of? resolution.? Although the history of the Board's > >>>> actions to date might prove? otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN > >>>> environment we should expect the Board? to conform to ICANN's basic > >>>> principles. > >>>> > >>>> I support the footnote amendment as proposed. > >>>> > >>>> Kind regards, > >>>> > >>>> RA > >>>> > >>>> Ronald N. Andruff > >>>> RNA Partners, Inc. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri > >>>> Doria > >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM > >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >>>> PDP--Proposed? Revised Footnote > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever > >>>> suspended? a PDP that they mandated is an open question.? I expect > >>>> they would either? wait, question the postponement, or make one > >>>> their preemptory decisions. > >>>> Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - > >>>> though they? can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this > >>>> point, and in any case? think it is a separate issue from the > >>>> suspension mechanism.? All other PDPs? are g-council decsions, even > >>>> if the issues report is requested by one of the? ACs. > >>>> > >>>> I am fine with the footnote. thanks. > >>>> > >>>> avri > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Anne and all, > >>>>> > >>>>> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council > >>>> decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation > >>>> that the? council should follow a related board request. I think > >>>> this could be the? case depending on a council debate following the > >>>> board request but there is? no obligation to do so. > >>>>> > >>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by > >>>> Julie? > >>>>> > >>>>> Best regards > >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von > >>>> Aikman-Scalese, Anne > >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43 > >>>>> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; > >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > >>>>> > >>>>> This makes sense.? Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board > >>>> says, > >>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an > >>>> answer > >>>> - go? back to the drawing board,"? then that is what will happen? > >>>>> > >>>>> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN.? If GNSO can't work effectively and > >>>>> the > >>>> Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's > >>>> "oasis" > >>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure > >>>> increases to? take control away from ICANN. > >>>>> > >>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up > >>>>> at > >>>> the > >>>> GNSO level. > >>>>> > >>>>> 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 at LRLaw.com . > >>>>> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. > >>>>> > >>>>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential > >>>>> information intended only for the individual or entity named > >>>>> within > >>>> the message. > >>>>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or > >>>>> the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you > >>>>> are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution > >>>>> or copying of this communication is prohibited.? If this > >>>>> communication was received in error, please notify us by reply > >>>>> e-mail and delete the > >>>> original message. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at yahoo.com] > >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM > >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; > >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > >>>>> > >>>>> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public > >>>> comment > >>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension. > >>>>> > >>>>> jse > >>>>> > >>>>> j. scott evans -? head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! > >>>> Inc. > >>>> - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund > >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" ; > >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM > >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks Anne.? Then, would you want "until further notice" to be > >>>> deleted? > >>>> If so, here's an amended text for all to review. > >>>>> > >>>>> Best regards, > >>>>> Julie > >>>>> > >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a > >>>> temporary > >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a > >>>> decision of the? GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or > >>>> schedule of the PDP is not? considered a suspension." > >>>>> > >>>>> From: , Anne > >>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM > >>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > >>>> , > >>>> Julie Hedlund > >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote > >>>>> > >>>>> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? > >>>> If > >>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would > >>>> not apply. > >>>> Anne > >>>>> > >>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > >>>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] > >>>>> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm > >>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] > >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a > >>>> PDP--Proposed > >>>> Revised Footnote > >>>>> > >>>>> Dear SCI members, > >>>>> > >>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a > >>>> clarification to > >>>> the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP. > >>>> Please review the revised following text with the change in bold > >>>> all > >>>> caps: > >>>>> > >>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a > >>>> temporary > >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a > >>>> decision of the? GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change > >>>> in milestones or schedule? of the PDP is not considered a suspension." > >>>>> > >>>>> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that > >>>>> the > >>>> footnote may be viewed in context. > >>>>> > >>>>> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is > >>>>> accepted > >>>> by the > >>>> SCI members it will not require a new public comment period. > >>>>> > >>>>> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if > >>>>> the > >>>> SCI > >>>> decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of > >>>> Wednesday, > >>>> 12 > >>>> December.** > >>>>> > >>>>> With best regards, > >>>>> > >>>>> Julie > >>>>> > >>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > >>>>> > >>>>> 15.? ? Termination of PDP prior to Final Report > >>>>> > >>>>> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the > >>>> publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a > >>>> motion that? passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of > >>>> termination orsuspension. > >>>> The > >>>> following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a > >>>> premature? termination or suspension of a PDP: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1.? ? Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to > >>>> identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong > >>>> support? or a consensus of its members despite significant time and > >>>> resources being? dedicated to the PDP; > >>>>> 2.? ? Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the > >>>> initiation > >>>> of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; > >>>> or? warranting a suspension; or > >>>>> 3.? ? Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for > >>>> participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired > >>>> and unable? to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack > >>>> of volunteer? participation. > >>>>> > >>>>> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its > >>>>> termination, > >>>> the > >>>> Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior > >>>> to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). > >>>>> > >>>>> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a > >>>> temporary > >>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a > >>>> decision of the? GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in > >>>> milestones or schedule of? the PDP is not considered a suspension. > >>>>> > >>>>> 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. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > PDP.docx> > > > > >? > -- > Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA > Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca > Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca > Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org > NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org > Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ > O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 > Skype: alain.berranger >? >? > AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT? > Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l?employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu?il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ? et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration. >? > CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE > This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. >? >? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Wed Dec 19 22:01:37 2012 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:01:37 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft Working Group Survey Results Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Attached are the survey results from the request for SCI members to take the survey. Five people took the survey. The following report summarizes the responses. This is on the agenda for discussion tomorrow so I wanted to give you the information so you could review it ahead of time. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DraftWorkingGroupSurveySummary_12192012.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 27661 bytes Desc: DraftWorkingGroupSurveySummary_12192012.pdf URL: From KnobenW at telekom.de Thu Dec 20 18:08:03 2012 From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 19:08:03 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Message-ID: All, from today's council call the task attached was shifted to the SCI. Looking forward to meeting you later Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Motion resubmitting.doc Type: application/msword Size: 21504 bytes Desc: Motion resubmitting.doc URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Thu Dec 20 21:05:00 2012 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:05:00 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Actions from SCI Meeting 20 December Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Below are the actions I captured from our meeting today on 20 December 2012. Please let me know if you have any questions, comments, or changes. Please complete the doodle, to be sent via a separate message, to help us to choose a recurring day and time for the meetings in 2013. Best wishes for a wonderful holiday and happy new year! Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions: 1. Issues the SCI is reviewing: Action: Staff create a chart and timeline on the wiki. 2. SCI Meetings: Action: Staff send a doodle to select a recurring date and time. 3. SCI members: Action: Staff update the list of members. 4. Modifications to the Charter to include Chair/Vice Chair elections and terms: Action: Staff put on agenda for next call. 5. Whether the SCI should solicit work or take on work from the GNSO council. Action: Staff put on the agenda for next call. 6. Suspension of a PDP: Draft language for the PDP Manual on suspensions and terminations. Actions: 1) J. Scott and Anne provide draft revised language; 2) Liaison to the Council report that the SCI is looking into termination. 7. Working Group Survey: Action: SCI members and colleagues take the survey if you haven't done so 8. Re-submitting a motion and conflicts of interest. Action: Staff put on agenda for next call. 9. Liaison to the Council. Action: Staff put on agenda for the next call. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Thu Dec 20 21:06:42 2012 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:06:42 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER: ACTION REQUESTED: Draft Survey for GNSO Working Groups In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Below is a link to a Draft Survey for GNSO Working Groups. As we discussed on our call today, 20 December, the SCI members who have not already done so are requested to read the Working Group Guidelines (see link also below), take the survey, and provide comments on how the survey can be improved. Link to the Working Group Guidelines: http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf Link to the Guidelines Summary: http://gnso.icann.org/council/summary-gnso-wg-guidelines-06apr11-en.pdf Link to Draft Survey for GNSO Working Groups: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FFTCJPT Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Glen at icann.org Thu Dec 20 22:52:59 2012 From: Glen at icann.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Glen_de_Saint_G=E9ry?=) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 14:52:59 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] MP3 recording of the SCI meeting - 20 December 2012 Message-ID: Dear All, Please find the MP3 rerecording and transcript of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Thursday, 20 December 2012 at 20:00UTC. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20121220-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#dec (transcripts and recording are found on the calendar page) As requested on the call, at the bottom of the attendance list, you will find the list of members currently subscribed to the mailing list. Attendees: Ronald Andruff - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Primary - chair Wolf-Ulrich Knoben - ISPCP - Primary Angie Graves - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Alternate Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC Alternate Avri Doria - Non Commercial SG - Primary - vice chair James Bladel - Registrar Stakeholder Group - Alternate Jennifer Wolfe - NCA Alain Berranger - NPOC - Primary Apologies : Mary Wong -NCUC J. Scott Evans - IPC Primary ICANN Staff: Marika Konings Julie Hedlund Glen de Saint G?ry ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Members subscribed to the mailing list Ron Andruff - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Primary Angie Graves - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Alternate J Scott Evans - IPC Primary Anne Aikman Scalese - IPC Alternate Tony Holmes - ISPCP - Alternate Wolf-Ulrich Knoben -- ISPCP - Primary Avri Doria - Non Commercial SG - Primary - vice chair Mary Wong - Non Commercial SG - Alternate Alain Berranger - NPOC primary Jennifer Wolfe - NCA primary Thomas Rickert -NCA alternate James Bladel - Registrar Stakeholder Group - Alternate Jennifer Standiford - Registrar SG Primary Ray Fassett RySG - Primary Jonathan Robinson - RySG Alternate Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Adobe Connect chat transcript: Marika Konings:Welcome to the SCI Meeting of 20 December 2012 Julie Hedlund 2:Here is the member list: Julie Hedlund 2:https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/4.+Members Bladel:Thank you. Marika Konings:Something the SCI may want to consider as well for future consensus call is whether a response is required from all SG/Cs or whether no response counts as support. avri:i was on the call. In fact I am in the At-LArge WG that hosted the wedbnar., thohg not a co-author of the R3 recomemndations. avri:i listened to it Wolf Knoben:look at the bylaws where the GNSO is defined as the policy development body in the gTLD area avri:Great set of complications marika, I think they should all be covered in the new recommendations are recommend by the IPC. Alain Berranger, NPOC:thanks Wolf... so ICANN community is there in the Multi-Stakeholder space/map solely to produce policy recommendations via GNSO? avri:it may need another comment cycle Wolf Knoben:There shall be a policy-development body known as the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which shall be responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains avri:i did it too. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Ulie, avri:We especially need for g-council emmebrs to read them. i would liek to have the g-council embers take a similar survey. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Julie, could you please send me a word version of the revised paragraph that went out for public comment with footnote? Anne Julie Hedlund 2:Yes Anne Julie Hedlund 2:I will do so as soon as this meeting ends Julie Hedlund 2:if not before Anne Aikman-Scalese:Thank you. Anne Bladel:I'm sorry, but I need to drop the call. Losing power. :( Glen de Saint G?ry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com Sun Dec 23 10:49:59 2012 From: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com (Jonathan Robinson) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 10:49:59 -0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00da01cde0fb$42ba9670$c82fc350$@ipracon.com> All, Jeff Neuman raised a point on the GNSO Council list that the question being posed to the SCI should be a simpler one focussed on the general principle not the specific item that caused us to question the principle. I am in agreement with this. Therefore my suggestion is that the SCI focus on the essential question i.e. under what circumstances is it acceptable / permissible for a motion to be submitted to the GNSO Council when such a motion is identical to one that has been previously voted down by the Council. Jeff put it well and I am support of his formulation of the question as follows. The question should simply be "should there be any restrictions on resubmitting motions that previously appeared before the Council? If so, what should those restrictions be and are there any exceptions? Thank-you. Jonathan From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW at telekom.de Sent: 20 December 2012 18:08 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task All, from today's council call the task attached was shifted to the SCI. Looking forward to meeting you later Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Sun Dec 23 11:16:26 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 06:16:26 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task In-Reply-To: <00da01cde0fb$42ba9670$c82fc350$@ipracon.com> References: <00da01cde0fb$42ba9670$c82fc350$@ipracon.com> Message-ID: On 23 Dec 2012, at 05:49, Jonathan Robinson wrote: > > The question should simply be "should there be any restrictions on resubmitting motions that previously appeared before the Council? If so, what should those restrictions be and are there any exceptions? > I think that the answer is yes there must be restrictions. I suggest the following 3 1. there should be an interval of several months 2. there should have been a substantive change to the motion 3. there should be a change in the countervailing conditions. Reasons that are not acceptable: - I did not understand how I should vote - I now see the error of my vote Otherwise, there is no reason to not bring up a losing motion each and every meeting. And things that should never be accepted is a chair explaining the way to vote after a vote has already been cast. It is very difficult to not see that as vote manipulation. There should be not exceptions, and the Chair should not have discretion in this matter. The impression of a chair losing his or her neutrality by appearing to manipulate a vote is a very bad thing for the g-council. avri From jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com Sun Dec 23 12:12:21 2012 From: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com (Jonathan Robinson) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:12:21 -0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task In-Reply-To: References: <00da01cde0fb$42ba9670$c82fc350$@ipracon.com> Message-ID: <016501cde106$c350fad0$49f2f070$@ipracon.com> Avri, I believe I understand your concerns and the specific circumstances that give rise to them. My personal opinion about the specific circumstances were that we had a new councillor who was not aware of the consequences of his action. He should have been but that is a different issue. Effective training and preparation of councillors is important. Equally bad for the Council (in my view) is a vote going the "wrong" way based on procedural misunderstanding or glitch. The outcome should represent the intention of the Councillors (or the groups directing their votes) and certainly not be an accident of a procedure. You and I should probably discuss this specific case one to one early in the new year. As far as the SCI is concerned my view is that we should, as far as possible, focus on the general issue. Our response should cover the specific item that gave rise to the question but not be solely driven by it. e.g. A motion is defeated. The proposer is simply not happy or believes that councillors can be persuaded to vote differently next time. Question: With your three below, are they: 1 AND 2 AND 3 Or are they 1 OR 2 OR 3 I suggest the latter. Thanks, Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: 23 December 2012 11:16 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task On 23 Dec 2012, at 05:49, Jonathan Robinson wrote: > > The question should simply be "should there be any restrictions on resubmitting motions that previously appeared before the Council? If so, what should those restrictions be and are there any exceptions? > I think that the answer is yes there must be restrictions. I suggest the following 3 1. there should be an interval of several months 2. there should have been a substantive change to the motion 3. there should be a change in the countervailing conditions. Reasons that are not acceptable: - I did not understand how I should vote - I now see the error of my vote Otherwise, there is no reason to not bring up a losing motion each and every meeting. And things that should never be accepted is a chair explaining the way to vote after a vote has already been cast. It is very difficult to not see that as vote manipulation. There should be not exceptions, and the Chair should not have discretion in this matter. The impression of a chair losing his or her neutrality by appearing to manipulate a vote is a very bad thing for the g-council. avri From avri at acm.org Sun Dec 23 14:01:03 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 09:01:03 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task In-Reply-To: <016501cde106$c350fad0$49f2f070$@ipracon.com> References: <00da01cde0fb$42ba9670$c82fc350$@ipracon.com> <016501cde106$c350fad0$49f2f070$@ipracon.com> Message-ID: How about 1 AND (2 or 3) Some other comments inset. On 23 Dec 2012, at 07:12, Jonathan Robinson wrote: > Equally bad for the Council (in my view) is a vote going the "wrong" way > based on procedural misunderstanding or glitch. Unfortunately that is a matter of subjective judgement on whether it was a glitch or a changed vote (the oops condition or the twisted arm condition) This notion that we can go around the process whenever we think there was a 'wrong' way taken is the most dangerous of prevalent GNSO concepts. And not one that the SCI should take for given, in my opinion. > The outcome should represent the intention of the Councillors (or the groups > directing their votes) and certainly not be an accident of a procedure. > > You and I should probably discuss this specific case one to one early in the > new year. Be glad to. Though the specific case in the only case study in the current question, so to exclude it from discussion in the SCI as an exemplar, seems a bit problematic to me. > > As far as the SCI is concerned my view is that we should, as far as > possible, focus on the general issue. > Our response should cover the specific item that gave rise to the question > but not be solely driven by it. > > e.g. A motion is defeated. The proposer is simply not happy or believes > that councillors can be persuaded to vote differently next time. > > Question: With your three below, are they: > > 1 AND 2 AND 3 > > Or are they > > 1 OR 2 OR 3 > > I suggest the latter. > > Thanks, > > Jonathan > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: 23 December 2012 11:16 > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > > > On 23 Dec 2012, at 05:49, Jonathan Robinson wrote: > >> >> The question should simply be "should there be any restrictions on > resubmitting motions that previously appeared before the Council? If so, > what should those restrictions be and are there any exceptions? >> > > > I think that the answer is yes there must be restrictions. I suggest the > following 3 > > 1. there should be an interval of several months > 2. there should have been a > substantive change to the motion > 3. there should be a change in the > countervailing conditions. From AAikman at lrlaw.com Sun Dec 23 16:21:12 2012 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 16:21:12 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task In-Reply-To: <00da01cde0fb$42ba9670$c82fc350$@ipracon.com> References: ,<00da01cde0fb$42ba9670$c82fc350$@ipracon.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD96025E1BF@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> The procedural point I would raise is that the scop Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Robinson [jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com] Received: Sunday, 23 Dec 2012, 3:51am To: KnobenW at telekom.de [KnobenW at telekom.de]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] CC: 'Neuman, Jeff' [Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us] Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task All, Jeff Neuman raised a point on the GNSO Council list that the question being posed to the SCI should be a simpler one focussed on the general principle not the specific item that caused us to question the principle. I am in agreement with this. Therefore my suggestion is that the SCI focus on the essential question i.e. under what circumstances is it acceptable / permissible for a motion to be submitted to the GNSO Council when such a motion is identical to one that has been previously voted down by the Council. Jeff put it well and I am support of his formulation of the question as follows. The question should simply be "should there be any restrictions on resubmitting motions that previously appeared before the Council? If so, what should those restrictions be and are there any exceptions? Thank-you. Jonathan From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW at telekom.de Sent: 20 December 2012 18:08 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task All, from today's council call the task attached was shifted to the SCI. Looking forward to meeting you later Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Sun Dec 23 16:21:51 2012 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 16:21:51 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task In-Reply-To: <00da01cde0fb$42ba9670$c82fc350$@ipracon.com> References: ,<00da01cde0fb$42ba9670$c82fc350$@ipracon.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD96025E212@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> It is most likely that te scop Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Robinson [jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com] Received: Sunday, 23 Dec 2012, 3:51am To: KnobenW at telekom.de [KnobenW at telekom.de]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] CC: 'Neuman, Jeff' [Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us] Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task All, Jeff Neuman raised a point on the GNSO Council list that the question being posed to the SCI should be a simpler one focussed on the general principle not the specific item that caused us to question the principle. I am in agreement with this. Therefore my suggestion is that the SCI focus on the essential question i.e. under what circumstances is it acceptable / permissible for a motion to be submitted to the GNSO Council when such a motion is identical to one that has been previously voted down by the Council. Jeff put it well and I am support of his formulation of the question as follows. The question should simply be "should there be any restrictions on resubmitting motions that previously appeared before the Council? If so, what should those restrictions be and are there any exceptions? Thank-you. Jonathan From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW at telekom.de Sent: 20 December 2012 18:08 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task All, from today's council call the task attached was shifted to the SCI. Looking forward to meeting you later Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Sun Dec 23 16:24:31 2012 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 16:24:31 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task In-Reply-To: <00da01cde0fb$42ba9670$c82fc350$@ipracon.com> References: ,<00da01cde0fb$42ba9670$c82fc350$@ipracon.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD96025E279@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> I give up since my fingers keep slipping and it's holiday time for me. I'll join the discussion in 2013. If any of you are taking time off, I wish you peace and rest...Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Robinson [jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com] Received: Sunday, 23 Dec 2012, 3:51am To: KnobenW at telekom.de [KnobenW at telekom.de]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] CC: 'Neuman, Jeff' [Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us] Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task All, Jeff Neuman raised a point on the GNSO Council list that the question being posed to the SCI should be a simpler one focussed on the general principle not the specific item that caused us to question the principle. I am in agreement with this. Therefore my suggestion is that the SCI focus on the essential question i.e. under what circumstances is it acceptable / permissible for a motion to be submitted to the GNSO Council when such a motion is identical to one that has been previously voted down by the Council. Jeff put it well and I am support of his formulation of the question as follows. The question should simply be "should there be any restrictions on resubmitting motions that previously appeared before the Council? If so, what should those restrictions be and are there any exceptions? Thank-you. Jonathan From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW at telekom.de Sent: 20 December 2012 18:08 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task All, from today's council call the task attached was shifted to the SCI. Looking forward to meeting you later Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: