[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Tue Dec 11 16:38:30 UTC 2012
Hi,
Are we unanimous on this issue? I had the impression Anne was still concerned.
avri
On 11 Dec 2012, at 14:28, <KnobenW at telekom.de> <KnobenW at telekom.de> 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
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche 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" <AAikman at lrlaw.com> 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" <KnobenW at telekom.de> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Ursprüngliche 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, <KnobenW at telekom.de> <KnobenW at telekom.de>
>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> <image001.gif>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 <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
>>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrlaw.com>;
>>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" <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: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman at LRLaw.com>
>>>>> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM
>>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org"
>>>> <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>,
>>>> Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> <Excerpt of PDP Manual Modified to Address Suspension of a PDP.docx><Motion to Adopt Revised PDP Manual to Include the Suspension of a PDP.docx>
More information about the Gnso-improvem-impl-sc
mailing list