[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposed language to address suspending a PDP

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I bet you are right.  How could the g-council suspend something ordered by the Board, since they have not choice about initiating it in the first place.

I had a similar first reaction to the reasons, but since the g-council that approved the PDP, assuming other than a Board ordered PDP, would have to get a supermajority to suspend/kill, they would be attesting to the seriousness of that impasse or whatever.

avri

On 24 Jul 2012, at 18:06, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:

> My question would be whether GNSO actually has authority to suspend a PDP that has been requested by the ICANN Board and if so, what is the source of that authority?  I have not checked the By-Laws as to the prior existence of the GNSO's authority to terminate a PDP so I don't know the origins of the authority for the addition of "or suspend".
> 
> I am also concerned that the stated reasons seem to be very accepting of the notion that we will experience completely ineffective PDP processes and that seems counter to the spirit of the organization.  For example, if a PDP is commenced on WhoIs, how easy will it be to reach a consensus on that one?  By listing these examples, do we create a sort of justification for giving up on an issue that seems too difficult?
> 
> Thank you,
> 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: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 1:00 AM
> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposed language to address suspending a PDP
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Following on from the last meeting, please find hereby the proposed language to be added to the PDP Manual to address suspending a PDP after initiation:
> 
> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend* 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 or suspension. 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 is significantly impaired and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack of volunteer participation.
> 
> * Suspension is a 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.
> This would be a modification of the current language of section 15 of the PDP manual (modified language in bold).
> 
> Looking forward to receiving your feedback.
> 
> With best regards,
> 
> Marika
> 
> 
> For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com.
> Phoenix (602)262-5311	    	Reno (775)823-2900
> Tucson (520)622-2090	    	Albuquerque (505)764-5400
> Las Vegas (702)949-8200	    	Silicon Valley (650)391-1380
>  This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.
>  In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.