From jscottevans at yahoo.com Tue Feb 5 16:12:13 2013 From: jscottevans at yahoo.com (J. Scott Evans) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 08:12:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Chair/Vice Chair Elections Message-ID: <1360080733.42260.YahooMailNeo@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Dear All: I have pasted below the suggested revisions for the election procedures for ?SCI Chair and Vice Chair positions. ?I have also attached a redlined version for your ease of review. J. Scott Chair and Vice Chair Elections Only the primary members of the Standing Committee (see description below) shall be eligible to run and vote for Chair and Vice Chair.? The Chair and Vice Chair shall serve for a 1-year term with the option to continue for a second 1-year term.?? For the avoidance of doubt, time served as Vice Chair shall not prohibit the Vice Chair from serving as Chair.? The Chair and Vice Chair are expected to act in a neutral manner and avoid any situation where a conflict of interest may arise for example as a result of exercising another function or role within ICANN. In December of each year, the SCI will ask for volunteers from its primary members to serve as Chair and Vice Chair.? If the current Chair or Vice Chair is not term limited and wishes to continue for a second year, no election will be held.? If there is more than on volunteer for either position, ?the following procedure will be followed: 1.???? If there are only two candidates for Chair and no candidates for Vice Chair, the GNSO Secretariat will conduct an election via e-mail ballot and tally the results after one week. The losing candidate will have the option of accepting the position of Vice Chair.? If he or she elects not to accept this position, the SCI will ask for volunteers for Vice Chair; or? ? 2.???? If there are more than two candidates for the Chair or one or more candidates for Vice Chair, the GNSO Secretariat will conduct an election for each position via e-mail ballot and tally the results after one week.? ?? j. scott evans - ?head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCI Charter Proposed Revision Chair-Vice Chair ElectionsJSE.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 24542 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jscottevans at yahoo.com Tue Feb 5 16:58:01 2013 From: jscottevans at yahoo.com (J. Scott Evans) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 08:58:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspension or Termination of a PDP Message-ID: <1360083481.93991.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Dear All: I have attached the latest revisions to the Termination or Suspension of a PDP. ?During our last call, we agreed to add two minor changes: 1. ?I have added the term Suspension to the heading as suggested by Wolf-Ulrich; and 2. ?I have added language to the first sentence to clarify that a report on termination is only require if the termination occurs BEFORE the issuance of a final report. With these two minor changes, I think this language is in good shape for consensus. Sorry for the delay in getting this circulated. J. Scott ? j. scott evans - ?head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Suspension-TerminationPDP5-Revised-1.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 18782 bytes Desc: not available URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Tue Feb 5 17:36:15 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 09:36:15 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspension or Termination of a PDP In-Reply-To: <1360083481.93991.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: All, This also is posted to the wiki meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/06+February+2013 at the bottom of the page under the heading "For Review." Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: "J. Scott Evans" > Reply-To: "J. Scott Evans" > Date: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 9:58 AM To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspension or Termination of a PDP Dear All: I have attached the latest revisions to the Termination or Suspension of a PDP. During our last call, we agreed to add two minor changes: 1. I have added the term Suspension to the heading as suggested by Wolf-Ulrich; and 2. I have added language to the first sentence to clarify that a report on termination is only require if the termination occurs BEFORE the issuance of a final report. With these two minor changes, I think this language is in good shape for consensus. Sorry for the delay in getting this circulated. J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Tue Feb 5 17:45:57 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 12:45:57 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspension or Termination of a PDP In-Reply-To: <1360083481.93991.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9D3A1E2940D04F18A7BA59A0A009D573@ron> Thank you, J Scott and Julie for posting all of the documentation in advance of our call tomorrow. I look forward to speaking with everyone tomorrow afternoon. 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 J. Scott Evans Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 11:58 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspension or Termination of a PDP Dear All: I have attached the latest revisions to the Termination or Suspension of a PDP. During our last call, we agreed to add two minor changes: 1. I have added the term Suspension to the heading as suggested by Wolf-Ulrich; and 2. I have added language to the first sentence to clarify that a report on termination is only require if the termination occurs BEFORE the issuance of a final report. With these two minor changes, I think this language is in good shape for consensus. Sorry for the delay in getting this circulated. J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Wed Feb 6 03:17:28 2013 From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 22:17:28 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspension or Termination of a PDP In-Reply-To: <9D3A1E2940D04F18A7BA59A0A009D573@ron> References: <1360083481.93991.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <9D3A1E2940D04F18A7BA59A0A009D573@ron> Message-ID: <511184F80200005B000A1565@smtp.law.unh.edu> Hi everyone, The "Resubmitting a Motion" sub-team plans to do a call either at the end of this week or early next to discuss our "homework", so we won't be reporting tomorrow. As such, perhaps the 10 minutes allocated to our agenda item can be used for other items requiring discussion. Thanks! 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: "Ron Andruff" To: "'J. Scott Evans'" , Date: 2/5/2013 12:47 PM Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspension or Termination of a PDP Thank you, J Scott and Julie for posting all of the documentation in advance of our call tomorrow. I look forward to speaking with everyone tomorrow afternoon. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. ( http://www.rnapartners.com ) From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 11:58 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspension or Termination of a PDP Dear All: I have attached the latest revisions to the Termination or Suspension of a PDP. During our last call, we agreed to add two minor changes: 1. I have added the term Suspension to the heading as suggested by Wolf-Ulrich; and 2. I have added language to the first sentence to clarify that a report on termination is only require if the termination occurs BEFORE the issuance of a final report. With these two minor changes, I think this language is in good shape for consensus. Sorry for the delay in getting this circulated. J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marika.konings at icann.org Wed Feb 6 12:57:16 2013 From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 04:57:16 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspension or Termination of a PDP In-Reply-To: <1360083481.93991.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: A couple of comments: * The first sentence of the last paragraph says 'specifying the reasons for the action taken', but it is not the WG that can take the action to suspend or terminate, but the Council. Should it read 'specifying the reasons for recommending termination or suspension'? * I'm still concerned by the bureaucracy this builds into the PDP. One of the main objectives of the last review was to build in more flexibility. The current language hardly leaves any room for the GNSO Council to exercise flexibility (in certain cases there may not be a need or demand for a formal report or public comment forum). A possible alternative could be to require the development of a formal termination / suspension report at the request of any GNSO SG/C or SO/ AC? This would allow for more flexibility while at the same time giving any party with an interest in the PDP a means to request a formal report on the reasons for termination or suspension. Best regards, Marika From: "J. Scott Evans" Reply-To: "J. Scott Evans" Date: Tuesday 5 February 2013 17:58 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspension or Termination of a PDP Dear All: I have attached the latest revisions to the Termination or Suspension of a PDP. During our last call, we agreed to add two minor changes: 1. I have added the term Suspension to the heading as suggested by Wolf-Ulrich; and 2. I have added language to the first sentence to clarify that a report on termination is only require if the termination occurs BEFORE the issuance of a final report. With these two minor changes, I think this language is in good shape for consensus. Sorry for the delay in getting this circulated. J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5056 bytes Desc: not available URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Wed Feb 6 15:50:56 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 10:50:56 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Resubmitting Motion Sub-team In-Reply-To: <511184F80200005B000A1565@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <3331811274234E2880C0964FE6AA98C5@ron> Thanks for the update, Mary. I appreciate the heads-up and the opportunity to reallocate the time. 'See' you on the call this afternoon. 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 Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 10:17 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspension or Termination of a PDP Hi everyone, The "Resubmitting a Motion" sub-team plans to do a call either at the end of this week or early next to discuss our "homework", so we won't be reporting tomorrow. As such, perhaps the 10 minutes allocated to our agenda item can be used for other items requiring discussion. Thanks! 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: "Ron Andruff" To: "'J. Scott Evans'" , Date: 2/5/2013 12:47 PM Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspension or Termination of a PDP Thank you, J Scott and Julie for posting all of the documentation in advance of our call tomorrow. I look forward to speaking with everyone tomorrow afternoon. 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 J. Scott Evans Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 11:58 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspension or Termination of a PDP Dear All: I have attached the latest revisions to the Termination or Suspension of a PDP. During our last call, we agreed to add two minor changes: 1. I have added the term Suspension to the heading as suggested by Wolf-Ulrich; and 2. I have added language to the first sentence to clarify that a report on termination is only require if the termination occurs BEFORE the issuance of a final report. With these two minor changes, I think this language is in good shape for consensus. Sorry for the delay in getting this circulated. J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Wed Feb 6 20:49:48 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 15:49:48 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Meeting: Proposed Agenda for 06 February 2013 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49418A76-B527-4473-9856-ADFDF3BEED55@acm.org> On 31 Jan 2013, at 11:06, Julie Hedlund wrote: > 6. Chair/Vice Chair elections and terms (SCI Charter change) I hate to ask, but in: > If there are more than two candidates for the Chair or multiple candidates for Vice Chair, the GNSO Secretariat will conduct an election via e-mail ballot and tally the results after one week. what happens if no one get a majority? or is plurality sufficient? one possibility if the answer is a majority is needed: If no candidate achieves a majority, the top two candidates will proceed as determined above in step 1. avri From angie at webgroup.com Wed Feb 6 21:01:10 2013 From: angie at webgroup.com (Angie Graves) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 16:01:10 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Meeting: Proposed Agenda for 06 February 2013 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I will unfortunately be a few minutes late to today's meeting as a weekly standing meeting I have on Wednesdays is running long. Regards, Angie On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Julie Hedlund wrote: > Dear SCI members, > > Here is a proposed agenda for next week's meeting on behalf Ron Andruff > and Avri Doria. Please let us know if you have any questions, comments, or > changes. This is also on the wiki and posted in the Adobe Connect room. > > Best regards, > > Julie > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > > *Proposed Agenda for 06 February 2013:************* > > 1. Roll call (1 min) > 2. Statements of Interest (1 min) > 3. Approval of the agenda (1 min) > 4. GNSO Council Liaison to the SCI (10 mins) > 5. Termination and Suspension of a PDP (10 mins) > 6. Chair/Vice Chair elections and terms (SCI Charter change) (10 mins) > 7. Charter Revision drafting team (10 mins) > 8. Action on Working Group survey (5 mins) > 9. Re-submitting a motion (10 mins) > 10. AOB (2 mins) > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Wed Feb 6 21:16:07 2013 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 13:16:07 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Meeting: Proposed Agenda for 06 February 2013 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you for this Angie ! From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Angie Graves Sent: mercredi 6 f?vrier 2013 22:01 To: Julie Hedlund Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Meeting: Proposed Agenda for 06 February 2013 I will unfortunately be a few minutes late to today's meeting as a weekly standing meeting I have on Wednesdays is running long. Regards, Angie On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Julie Hedlund > wrote: Dear SCI members, Here is a proposed agenda for next week's meeting on behalf Ron Andruff and Avri Doria. Please let us know if you have any questions, comments, or changes. This is also on the wiki and posted in the Adobe Connect room. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Proposed Agenda for 06 February 2013: 1. Roll call (1 min) 2. Statements of Interest (1 min) 3. Approval of the agenda (1 min) 4. GNSO Council Liaison to the SCI (10 mins) 5. Termination and Suspension of a PDP (10 mins) 6. Chair/Vice Chair elections and terms (SCI Charter change) (10 mins) 7. Charter Revision drafting team (10 mins) 8. Action on Working Group survey (5 mins) 9. Re-submitting a motion (10 mins) 10. AOB (2 mins) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jscottevans at yahoo.com Wed Feb 6 21:55:57 2013 From: jscottevans at yahoo.com (J. Scott Evans) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 13:55:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Elections Message-ID: <1360187757.97459.YahooMailNeo@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Here is the document showing the revisions to the elections section with regard to point 2. J. Scott ? j. scott evans - ?head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCI Charter Proposed Revision Chair-Vice Chair ElectionsJSE2-6-13.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 24614 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Wed Feb 6 22:50:00 2013 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 14:50:00 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] MP3 recording of the SCI meeting - 06 February 2013 Message-ID: Dear All, The next meeting of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting will be held on Wednesday, 20 February 2013 at 21:00 UTC. Please note Wednesday at 21:00 UTC is the new time for regular meetings every two weeks! Please find the MP3 recording of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Wednesday, 06 February 2013 at 21:00UTC. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20130206-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#feb (transcripts and recording are found on the calendar page) 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 Primary J. Scott Evans - IPC - Alternate Avri Doria - Non Commercial SG - Primary - vice chair Thomas Rickert - NCA - Alternate Mary Wong -NCUC - Alternate Jennifer Standiford - Registrar SG Primary J Scott Evans - IPC - Alternate Apologies : Jennifer Wolfe - NCA primary Julie Hedlund ICANN Staff: Marika Konings Nathalie Peregrine ** 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 - Alternate Anne Aikman Scalese - IPC - Primary 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 Jeff Neuman - RySG - Alternate Jonathan Robinson - GNSO Chair - Observer Mason Cole - GNSO Vice Chair - Observer Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie Adobe Connect chat transcript 06 February 2013: Julie Hedlund:This is the 06 February 2013 meeting of the GNSO Standing Committee on Improvements (SCI) Ron A:Good afternoon, Julie. I thought you were going to be away for this call. Pleasant surprise... Marika Konings:Hi Ron, actually Julie is on vacation but she did set up the Adobe Connect room and left that message ;-) Ron A:That's efficiency! Good to know that she is indeed away or I may have saddled her with all manner of work...;o) Mary Wong:Hear hear! Marika Konings:https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/4.+Members J Scott Evans:I am dialing in now. On hold Nathalie Peregrine:J.Scott Evans has joined theAC room Marika Konings:@Avri - I presume you will be sending us Stephanie's details so she can be added to the mailing list? J Scott Evans: I am on now Anne Aikman-Scalese:Hi J. Scott - assume you have latest versions of the Elections draft and the PDP Suspension draft. Anne Avri Doria:Marika, you I will be sending in the details. J Scott Evans:Julie & Marika do you have the 2 documents I circulated yesterday morning PST? Marika Konings:Yes, I have them ready in Adobe Connect J Scott Evans:Thank you. J Scott Evans:let's delete "the action taken" and insert "recommendation" Mary Wong:And do the same fof the end of the sentence. J Scott Evans:Mary, that would work for me. J Scott Evans:In the case of a proposed termination of a PDP prior to the issuance of a final report or suspension of a PDP, the GNSO liaison to the Working Group shall promptly submit to the Council a written Termination Report or Suspension Report specifying the reasons for the recommended action, if applicable, the points of view represented in the Working Group and the consensus status (as defined by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines) at the time such recommended action is taken. In the event no Working Group has been formed, the Council shall promptly prepare a Termination Report or Suspension Report specifying the reasons for the recommended action and shall conduct a public comment forum seeking community input on the report first prior to conducting a vote Anne Aikman-Scalese:Just a point that in the sixth line of the last paragraph, should we be saying "action is taken" or "action is recommended"? J Scott Evans:This is really tough to read in the room. Marika Konings:You can increase the size by clicking the plus sign at the bottom of the pod or use the percentage tab. Anne Aikman-Scalese:I zoomed to 125 in the menu at the bottom Avri Doria:We can't have more that 2 candidates for gnso chair until we get a thrid house. J Scott Evans:so we would amend pt 2 to say "In the event no one candidate receives a clear majority, the GNSO Secretariat will conduct an election between the two candidates receiving the most votes via email ballot and tally the results afte one week." J Scott Evans:I have to jump off this call and on to anohter. Thanks to everyone for their thoughtful remarks today. Ron A:Thank you J Scott! Mary Wong:@Thomas, that's not why (chance of vote). Mary Wong:I view the SCI as a kind of oversight body, so Full Consensus is important for that role (esp given that even when we don't achieve it, the Council will still be informed of why). Avri Doria:I am more than willing to repsond to THomas' questions, but when we start working on this. Avri Doria:council is management and supposed to be voting on whether proper process was followed. Anne Aikman-Scalese:I would support reporting to the GNSO where all primary members agree there is an impasse and full consensus will not be reached. Avri Doria:that is the job of a liaison Anne Aikman-Scalese:THank you Ron and everyone - until Monday for the subgroup! Wolf Knoben:Thanks Ron and bye all Mary Wong:Dito! Nathalie Peregrine GNSO Secretariat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marika.konings at icann.org Thu Feb 7 10:30:16 2013 From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 02:30:16 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items from yesterday's meeting Message-ID: Dear All, Thank you for participating in yesterday's SCI meeting. Please note the action items below. With best regards, Marika Notes / Action Items SCI Meeting of 6 February 2013 * NCSG has appointed Stefania Milan as an alternate member to the SCI * Item 4. Council liaison - Ron to send letter to the GNSO Council to suggest two options: 1) SCI Chair or Vice-Chair to participate as an observer in GNSO Council meetings, 2) appoint a GNSO Council liaison * Item 5. Marika to propose edits to latest version of the language on termination and suspension for further consideration by the SCI. To be reviewed / discussed at the next meeting. * Item 6. J. Scott to update language as proposed in the chat (amend pt 2 to say "In the event no one candidate receives a clear majority, the GNSO Secretariat will conduct an election between the two candidates receiving the most votes via email ballot and tally the results afte one week.") (completed, please see http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/msg00635.html) * Item 7. Consider further forming a sub-team to consider possible changes to the charter at the next meeting. Staff to review why full consensus requirement was included in the charter. Move this item up on the next agenda. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5056 bytes Desc: not available URL: From marika.konings at icann.org Thu Feb 7 11:10:14 2013 From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 03:10:14 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Message-ID: Dear All, As discussed yesterday, please find attached for your review the suggested modifications to the last version of the language concerning the termination or suspension of a PDP. With best regards, Marika -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Suspension-TerminationPDP-Revised-MK.doc Type: application/msword Size: 29184 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5056 bytes Desc: not available URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Thu Feb 7 21:48:37 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 21:48:37 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Action items from yesterday's meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD971B002CF@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> I would likely add as to "Reconsideration of a Motion at GNSO" that the sub-team will conference Monday and report back at the next meeting. [cid:954144721 at 07022013-2507]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: Thursday, February 07, 2013 3:30 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items from yesterday's meeting Dear All, Thank you for participating in yesterday's SCI meeting. Please note the action items below. With best regards, Marika Notes / Action Items SCI Meeting of 6 February 2013 * NCSG has appointed Stefania Milan as an alternate member to the SCI * Item 4. Council liaison - Ron to send letter to the GNSO Council to suggest two options: 1) SCI Chair or Vice-Chair to participate as an observer in GNSO Council meetings, 2) appoint a GNSO Council liaison * Item 5. Marika to propose edits to latest version of the language on termination and suspension for further consideration by the SCI. To be reviewed / discussed at the next meeting. * Item 6. J. Scott to update language as proposed in the chat (amend pt 2 to say "In the event no one candidate receives a clear majority, the GNSO Secretariat will conduct an election between the two candidates receiving the most votes via email ballot and tally the results afte one week.") (completed, please see http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/msg00635.html) * Item 7. Consider further forming a sub-team to consider possible changes to the charter at the next meeting. Staff to review why full consensus requirement was included in the charter. Move this item up on the next agenda. ________________________________ 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 Feb 8 22:19:43 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 17:19:43 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <6163342775E54D28A83A5ED31C7D551F@ron> Thank you for your prompt action in getting this option out for the Committee, Marika. I encourage all members to review it and bring their thoughts back to the list to see if we can nail the final language down in advance of our next call. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. _____ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 6:10 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Dear All, As discussed yesterday, please find attached for your review the suggested modifications to the last version of the language concerning the termination or suspension of a PDP. With best regards, Marika -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Sat Feb 9 00:25:58 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 00:25:58 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973A117C6@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Marisa, I have taken your language and condensed it a bit as well as trying to clarify that if there is no recommendation from the WG before the Council, then there would have to be a properly seconded motion in order to require the Council to seek public comment. I don't think anyone was intending to completely eliminate the requirement for a written report when the WG was making the recommendation. That written Termination Report or Suspension Report was mandatory where the recommendation for suspension or termination came from the WG. That improvement was at the very heart of this initiative and so that language has been added back where you had deleted it. On a more minor note, I also noticed that the earlier paragraphs in this same section refer to "PDP Team" and not "PDP Working Group". So I changed all the references to PDP Team. It seems it should be one or the other consistently throughout unless there is some difference I do not appreciate between a PDP Team and PDP WG. I also think it would be fine for all references to be to PDP WG and that is the term I hear used more often. Attached is a new Feb 8 draft with the changes accepted. While working on this, I ended up losing track of the status of my redline and would appreciate it if you could run a comparison btween this and the language the SCI reviewed in its last call so that all members can see the proposed changes in my draft. Thank you, Anne [cid:673301100 at 09022013-0625]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700 One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 ? Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman 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: Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:10 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Dear All, As discussed yesterday, please find attached for your review the suggested modifications to the last version of the language concerning the termination or suspension of a PDP. With best regards, Marika ________________________________ For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. -------------- 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: Suspension-TerminationPDP-Revised-Accept Changes 8FEB2013.doc Type: application/msword Size: 29696 bytes Desc: Suspension-TerminationPDP-Revised-Accept Changes 8FEB2013.doc URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Sat Feb 9 00:33:35 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 00:33:35 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973A117C6@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973A117C6@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973A148A3@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Sorry Marika - I don't know why I typed "s" instead of "k" in your name - it's been a long week - I apologize! Anne [cid:447003300 at 09022013-0644]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700 One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman 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 Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 5:26 PM To: 'Marika Konings'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Marisa, I have taken your language and condensed it a bit as well as trying to clarify that if there is no recommendation from the WG before the Council, then there would have to be a properly seconded motion in order to require the Council to seek public comment. I don't think anyone was intending to completely eliminate the requirement for a written report when the WG was making the recommendation. That written Termination Report or Suspension Report was mandatory where the recommendation for suspension or termination came from the WG. That improvement was at the very heart of this initiative and so that language has been added back where you had deleted it. On a more minor note, I also noticed that the earlier paragraphs in this same section refer to "PDP Team" and not "PDP Working Group". So I changed all the references to PDP Team. It seems it should be one or the other consistently throughout unless there is some difference I do not appreciate between a PDP Team and PDP WG. I also think it would be fine for all references to be to PDP WG and that is the term I hear used more often. Attached is a new Feb 8 draft with the changes accepted. While working on this, I ended up losing track of the status of my redline and would appreciate it if you could run a comparison btween this and the language the SCI reviewed in its last call so that all members can see the proposed changes in my draft. Thank you, Anne [cid:447003300 at 09022013-064B]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700 One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman 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: Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:10 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Dear All, As discussed yesterday, please find attached for your review the suggested modifications to the last version of the language concerning the termination or suspension of a PDP. With best regards, Marika ________________________________ For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. -------------- 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 marika.konings at icann.org Sun Feb 10 21:27:18 2013 From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 13:27:18 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973A117C6@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Anne, As requested, please find attached the redline comparing the previous version from J. Scott with the latest one you circulated. A couple of comments: * PDP Team is used throughout the PDP Manual as, even though the WG model is currently the preferred option to conduct a PDP, it foresees the possibility for the GNSO Council to choose another model should it decide so (e.g. Committee of the whole), hence the use of the term 'PDP Team'. * There is a timing issue with having a seconded motion before a public comment period can be opened. The current practice of the GNSO Council is to only allow for one deferral of a motion, while a public comment forum may cover at least two Council meetings. It is not clear to me why a properly seconded motion would be needed before a public comment forum may be initiated (a public comment forum can be initiated by the Council or WG at any time it wants, there is no motion required to do so). * Instead of mandating a written report, I had suggested that in order to allow for flexibility, there would be more discretion on the part of the Council liaison and/or WG to decide on the format in which they 'convey to the GNSO Council the reasons for the recommended action to be taken and, if applicable, the points of view represented in the Working Group and the consensus status (as defined by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines) at the time such action is recommended' (for example, this could be in the form of an email, letter or oral update to the GNSO Council). Especially since a safeguard has been added to require a written report at the request of any Council member, AC or Board. If the SCI insists on requiring a 'Termination Report' or 'Suspension Report', it will be important to define which information is expected to be contained in such report as it is currently nowhere defined in the PDP manual. With best regards, Marika From: , Anne Date: Saturday 9 February 2013 01:25 To: Marika Konings , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: RE: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Marisa, I have taken your language and condensed it a bit as well as trying to clarify that if there is no recommendation from the WG before the Council, then there would have to be a properly seconded motion in order to require the Council to seek public comment. I don't think anyone was intending to completely eliminate the requirement for a written report when the WG was making the recommendation. That written Termination Report or Suspension Report was mandatory where the recommendation for suspension or termination came from the WG. That improvement was at the very heart of this initiative and so that language has been added back where you had deleted it. On a more minor note, I also noticed that the earlier paragraphs in this same section refer to "PDP Team" and not "PDP Working Group". So I changed all the references to PDP Team. It seems it should be one or the other consistently throughout unless there is some difference I do not appreciate between a PDP Team and PDP WG. I also think it would be fine for all references to be to PDP WG and that is the term I hear used more often. Attached is a new Feb 8 draft with the changes accepted. While working on this, I ended up losing track of the status of my redline and would appreciate it if you could run a comparison btween this and the language the SCI reviewed in its last call so that all members can see the proposed changes in my draft. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700 One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 ? Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman 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 Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:10 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Dear All, As discussed yesterday, please find attached for your review the suggested modifications to the last version of the language concerning the termination or suspension of a PDP. With best regards, Marika For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com . Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. -------------- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Suspension - Termination Comparison - 10 February 2012.doc Type: application/msword Size: 30208 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5056 bytes Desc: not available URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Mon Feb 11 18:21:19 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:21:19 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Liaison Message-ID: Dear Jonathan, Following the recent change of leadership of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI), with the former Chair being a member of the GNSO Council, the SCI is now in a situation where neither the Chair or the Vice-Chair are members of the GNSO Council. At the same time, the SCI is responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of recommendations that came out of the last GNSO review. The SCI considers it important to have a direct line of communication with the GNSO Council as most of the issues under consideration are a result of GNSO Council requests and SCI recommendations are likely to impact the GNSO Council operations. As a result, the SCI would like to propose that the GNSO Council consider appointing a liaison to the SCI. From the SCI's perspective, such a liaison could be appointed in two different ways: (1) a 'traditional' liaison is appointed by the GNSO Council, i.e. a member of the GNSO Council is appointed to serve as the liaison to the SCI as described in the GNSO Working Groups; or (2) the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the SCI serve as liaisons to the GNSO Council and are able to participate as observers in GNSO Council meetings either upon invitation (when issues of relevance are discussed) or as standing observers. Obviously it is the GNSO Council's prerogative to decide on the solution that is deemed most appropriate and effective. We look forward to receiving your feedback in due course. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff Chair SCI -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Mon Feb 11 18:27:58 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:27:58 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <7605E570244F4F4ABD5BB8B62765D5C6@ron> Dear all, Thank you, Marika, for the clarifying points noted below. I would particularly like to draw Committee Members' attention to the last sentence under the 3rd bullet: "If the SCI insists on requiring a 'Termination Report' or 'Suspension Report', it will be important to define which information is expected to be contained in such report as it is currently nowhere defined in the PDP manual.". This is an important consideration in finalizing the suspension/termination language. Thank you, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. _____ 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, February 10, 2013 4:27 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Anne, As requested, please find attached the redline comparing the previous version from J. Scott with the latest one you circulated. A couple of comments: * PDP Team is used throughout the PDP Manual as, even though the WG model is currently the preferred option to conduct a PDP, it foresees the possibility for the GNSO Council to choose another model should it decide so (e.g. Committee of the whole), hence the use of the term 'PDP Team'. * There is a timing issue with having a seconded motion before a public comment period can be opened. The current practice of the GNSO Council is to only allow for one deferral of a motion, while a public comment forum may cover at least two Council meetings. It is not clear to me why a properly seconded motion would be needed before a public comment forum may be initiated (a public comment forum can be initiated by the Council or WG at any time it wants, there is no motion required to do so). * Instead of mandating a written report, I had suggested that in order to allow for flexibility, there would be more discretion on the part of the Council liaison and/or WG to decide on the format in which they 'convey to the GNSO Council the reasons for the recommended action to be taken and, if applicable, the points of view represented in the Working Group and the consensus status (as defined by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines) at the time such action is recommended' (for example, this could be in the form of an email, letter or oral update to the GNSO Council). Especially since a safeguard has been added to require a written report at the request of any Council member, AC or Board. If the SCI insists on requiring a 'Termination Report' or 'Suspension Report', it will be important to define which information is expected to be contained in such report as it is currently nowhere defined in the PDP manual. With best regards, Marika From: , Anne Date: Saturday 9 February 2013 01:25 To: Marika Konings , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: RE: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Marisa, I have taken your language and condensed it a bit as well as trying to clarify that if there is no recommendation from the WG before the Council, then there would have to be a properly seconded motion in order to require the Council to seek public comment. I don't think anyone was intending to completely eliminate the requirement for a written report when the WG was making the recommendation. That written Termination Report or Suspension Report was mandatory where the recommendation for suspension or termination came from the WG. That improvement was at the very heart of this initiative and so that language has been added back where you had deleted it. On a more minor note, I also noticed that the earlier paragraphs in this same section refer to "PDP Team" and not "PDP Working Group". So I changed all the references to PDP Team. It seems it should be one or the other consistently throughout unless there is some difference I do not appreciate between a PDP Team and PDP WG. I also think it would be fine for all references to be to PDP WG and that is the term I hear used more often. Attached is a new Feb 8 draft with the changes accepted. While working on this, I ended up losing track of the status of my redline and would appreciate it if you could run a comparison btween this and the language the SCI reviewed in its last call so that all members can see the proposed changes in my draft. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP . Suite 700 One South Church Avenue . Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 . Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman 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 Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:10 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Dear All, As discussed yesterday, please find attached for your review the suggested modifications to the last version of the language concerning the termination or suspension of a PDP. With best regards, Marika _____ For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. -------------- 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 Mon Feb 11 18:57:27 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:57:27 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP In-Reply-To: <7605E570244F4F4ABD5BB8B62765D5C6@ron> References: ,<7605E570244F4F4ABD5BB8B62765D5C6@ron> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973A19245@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> I had understood the language to specify that the elements required are the reasons for the recommended action and the consensus status per WG guidelines, if applicable. That does not seem to require further specification to me, but others may feel differently. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] Received: Monday, 11 Feb 2013, 11:28am To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Dear all, Thank you, Marika, for the clarifying points noted below. I would particularly like to draw Committee Members? attention to the last sentence under the 3rd bullet: ?If the SCI insists on requiring a 'Termination Report' or 'Suspension Report', it will be important to define which information is expected to be contained in such report as it is currently nowhere defined in the PDP manual.?. This is an important consideration in finalizing the suspension/termination language. Thank you, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. ________________________________ 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, February 10, 2013 4:27 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Anne, As requested, please find attached the redline comparing the previous version from J. Scott with the latest one you circulated. A couple of comments: * PDP Team is used throughout the PDP Manual as, even though the WG model is currently the preferred option to conduct a PDP, it foresees the possibility for the GNSO Council to choose another model should it decide so (e.g. Committee of the whole), hence the use of the term 'PDP Team'. * There is a timing issue with having a seconded motion before a public comment period can be opened. The current practice of the GNSO Council is to only allow for one deferral of a motion, while a public comment forum may cover at least two Council meetings. It is not clear to me why a properly seconded motion would be needed before a public comment forum may be initiated (a public comment forum can be initiated by the Council or WG at any time it wants, there is no motion required to do so). * Instead of mandating a written report, I had suggested that in order to allow for flexibility, there would be more discretion on the part of the Council liaison and/or WG to decide on the format in which they 'convey to the GNSO Council the reasons for the recommended action to be taken and, if applicable, the points of view represented in the Working Group and the consensus status (as defined by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines) at the time such action is recommended' (for example, this could be in the form of an email, letter or oral update to the GNSO Council). Especially since a safeguard has been added to require a written report at the request of any Council member, AC or Board. If the SCI insists on requiring a 'Termination Report' or 'Suspension Report', it will be important to define which information is expected to be contained in such report as it is currently nowhere defined in the PDP manual. With best regards, Marika From: , Anne > Date: Saturday 9 February 2013 01:25 To: Marika Konings >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: RE: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Marisa, I have taken your language and condensed it a bit as well as trying to clarify that if there is no recommendation from the WG before the Council, then there would have to be a properly seconded motion in order to require the Council to seek public comment. I don't think anyone was intending to completely eliminate the requirement for a written report when the WG was making the recommendation. That written Termination Report or Suspension Report was mandatory where the recommendation for suspension or termination came from the WG. That improvement was at the very heart of this initiative and so that language has been added back where you had deleted it. On a more minor note, I also noticed that the earlier paragraphs in this same section refer to "PDP Team" and not "PDP Working Group". So I changed all the references to PDP Team. It seems it should be one or the other consistently throughout unless there is some difference I do not appreciate between a PDP Team and PDP WG. I also think it would be fine for all references to be to PDP WG and that is the term I hear used more often. Attached is a new Feb 8 draft with the changes accepted. While working on this, I ended up losing track of the status of my redline and would appreciate it if you could run a comparison btween this and the language the SCI reviewed in its last call so that all members can see the proposed changes in my draft. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01CE085B.9A4E9350]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700 One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 ? Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman 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 Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:10 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Dear All, As discussed yesterday, please find attached for your review the suggested modifications to the last version of the language concerning the termination or suspension of a PDP. With best regards, Marika ________________________________ For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. -------------- 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 Mon Feb 11 20:25:56 2013 From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 12:25:56 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973A19245@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: In that case, would a 'written statement' containing the reasons for the recommended action and the consensus status per WG guidelines, if applicable, be a more accurate term for what you are looking for? A 'report' in the context of the PDP, is typically something much more substantial (incl. executive summary, attendance records, annexes, etc). Best regards, Marika From: , Anne Date: Monday 11 February 2013 19:57 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , "randruff at rnapartners.com" Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP I had understood the language to specify that the elements required are the reasons for the recommended action and the consensus status per WG guidelines, if applicable. That does not seem to require further specification to me, but others may feel differently. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] Received: Monday, 11 Feb 2013, 11:28am To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Dear all, Thank you, Marika, for the clarifying points noted below. I would particularly like to draw Committee Members? attention to the last sentence under the 3rd bullet: ?If the SCI insists on requiring a 'Termination Report' or 'Suspension Report', it will be important to define which information is expected to be contained in such report as it is currently nowhere defined in the PDP manual.?. This is an important consideration in finalizing the suspension/termination language. Thank you, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. 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, February 10, 2013 4:27 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Anne, As requested, please find attached the redline comparing the previous version from J. Scott with the latest one you circulated. A couple of comments: * PDP Team is used throughout the PDP Manual as, even though the WG model is currently the preferred option to conduct a PDP, it foresees the possibility for the GNSO Council to choose another model should it decide so (e.g. Committee of the whole), hence the use of the term 'PDP Team'. * There is a timing issue with having a seconded motion before a public comment period can be opened. The current practice of the GNSO Council is to only allow for one deferral of a motion, while a public comment forum may cover at least two Council meetings. It is not clear to me why a properly seconded motion would be needed before a public comment forum may be initiated (a public comment forum can be initiated by the Council or WG at any time it wants, there is no motion required to do so). * Instead of mandating a written report, I had suggested that in order to allow for flexibility, there would be more discretion on the part of the Council liaison and/or WG to decide on the format in which they 'convey to the GNSO Council the reasons for the recommended action to be taken and, if applicable, the points of view represented in the Working Group and the consensus status (as defined by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines) at the time such action is recommended' (for example, this could be in the form of an email, letter or oral update to the GNSO Council). Especially since a safeguard has been added to require a written report at the request of any Council member, AC or Board. If the SCI insists on requiring a 'Termination Report' or 'Suspension Report', it will be important to define which information is expected to be contained in such report as it is currently nowhere defined in the PDP manual. With best regards, Marika From: , Anne Date: Saturday 9 February 2013 01:25 To: Marika Konings , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: RE: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Marisa, I have taken your language and condensed it a bit as well as trying to clarify that if there is no recommendation from the WG before the Council, then there would have to be a properly seconded motion in order to require the Council to seek public comment. I don't think anyone was intending to completely eliminate the requirement for a written report when the WG was making the recommendation. That written Termination Report or Suspension Report was mandatory where the recommendation for suspension or termination came from the WG. That improvement was at the very heart of this initiative and so that language has been added back where you had deleted it. On a more minor note, I also noticed that the earlier paragraphs in this same section refer to "PDP Team" and not "PDP Working Group". So I changed all the references to PDP Team. It seems it should be one or the other consistently throughout unless there is some difference I do not appreciate between a PDP Team and PDP WG. I also think it would be fine for all references to be to PDP WG and that is the term I hear used more often. Attached is a new Feb 8 draft with the changes accepted. While working on this, I ended up losing track of the status of my redline and would appreciate it if you could run a comparison btween this and the language the SCI reviewed in its last call so that all members can see the proposed changes in my draft. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700 One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 ? Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman 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 Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:10 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Dear All, As discussed yesterday, please find attached for your review the suggested modifications to the last version of the language concerning the termination or suspension of a PDP. With best regards, Marika For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com . Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. -------------- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5056 bytes Desc: not available URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Mon Feb 11 20:59:59 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 20:59:59 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973A19245@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973A1D707@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> certaiinly fine with me, but I would likely say "written Termination summary or Suspension summary". [cid:852215720 at 11022013-1E33]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700 One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman 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: Monday, February 11, 2013 1:26 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; randruff at rnapartners.com Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP In that case, would a 'written statement' containing the reasons for the recommended action and the consensus status per WG guidelines, if applicable, be a more accurate term for what you are looking for? A 'report' in the context of the PDP, is typically something much more substantial (incl. executive summary, attendance records, annexes, etc). Best regards, Marika From: , Anne > Date: Monday 11 February 2013 19:57 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, "randruff at rnapartners.com" > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP I had understood the language to specify that the elements required are the reasons for the recommended action and the consensus status per WG guidelines, if applicable. That does not seem to require further specification to me, but others may feel differently. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] Received: Monday, 11 Feb 2013, 11:28am To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Dear all, Thank you, Marika, for the clarifying points noted below. I would particularly like to draw Committee Members' attention to the last sentence under the 3rd bullet: "If the SCI insists on requiring a 'Termination Report' or 'Suspension Report', it will be important to define which information is expected to be contained in such report as it is currently nowhere defined in the PDP manual.". This is an important consideration in finalizing the suspension/termination language. Thank you, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. ________________________________ 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, February 10, 2013 4:27 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Anne, As requested, please find attached the redline comparing the previous version from J. Scott with the latest one you circulated. A couple of comments: * PDP Team is used throughout the PDP Manual as, even though the WG model is currently the preferred option to conduct a PDP, it foresees the possibility for the GNSO Council to choose another model should it decide so (e.g. Committee of the whole), hence the use of the term 'PDP Team'. * There is a timing issue with having a seconded motion before a public comment period can be opened. The current practice of the GNSO Council is to only allow for one deferral of a motion, while a public comment forum may cover at least two Council meetings. It is not clear to me why a properly seconded motion would be needed before a public comment forum may be initiated (a public comment forum can be initiated by the Council or WG at any time it wants, there is no motion required to do so). * Instead of mandating a written report, I had suggested that in order to allow for flexibility, there would be more discretion on the part of the Council liaison and/or WG to decide on the format in which they 'convey to the GNSO Council the reasons for the recommended action to be taken and, if applicable, the points of view represented in the Working Group and the consensus status (as defined by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines) at the time such action is recommended' (for example, this could be in the form of an email, letter or oral update to the GNSO Council). Especially since a safeguard has been added to require a written report at the request of any Council member, AC or Board. If the SCI insists on requiring a 'Termination Report' or 'Suspension Report', it will be important to define which information is expected to be contained in such report as it is currently nowhere defined in the PDP manual. With best regards, Marika From: , Anne > Date: Saturday 9 February 2013 01:25 To: Marika Konings >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: RE: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Marisa, I have taken your language and condensed it a bit as well as trying to clarify that if there is no recommendation from the WG before the Council, then there would have to be a properly seconded motion in order to require the Council to seek public comment. I don't think anyone was intending to completely eliminate the requirement for a written report when the WG was making the recommendation. That written Termination Report or Suspension Report was mandatory where the recommendation for suspension or termination came from the WG. That improvement was at the very heart of this initiative and so that language has been added back where you had deleted it. On a more minor note, I also noticed that the earlier paragraphs in this same section refer to "PDP Team" and not "PDP Working Group". So I changed all the references to PDP Team. It seems it should be one or the other consistently throughout unless there is some difference I do not appreciate between a PDP Team and PDP WG. I also think it would be fine for all references to be to PDP WG and that is the term I hear used more often. Attached is a new Feb 8 draft with the changes accepted. While working on this, I ended up losing track of the status of my redline and would appreciate it if you could run a comparison btween this and the language the SCI reviewed in its last call so that all members can see the proposed changes in my draft. Thank you, Anne [cid:852215720 at 11022013-1E3A]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700 One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman 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 Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:10 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Dear All, As discussed yesterday, please find attached for your review the suggested modifications to the last version of the language concerning the termination or suspension of a PDP. With best regards, Marika ________________________________ For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. -------------- 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 Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Tue Feb 12 02:50:31 2013 From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu (Mary Wong) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 21:50:31 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973A1D707@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973A19245@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973A1D707@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <511967A7.D84C.005B.0@law.unh.edu> $(UHi everyone - I support the idea of not requiring a report (for the reasons stated by Marika), and of substituting a written summary of some sort, the idea here being to capture the reasons and consensus status (as Anne mentions), which in my view can be achieved with the latter type of document rather than going down the road of expecting a full-blown report of the kind a PDP normally produces. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong 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: "'Marika Konings'" , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , "randruff at rnapartners.com" Date: 2/11/2013 4:02 PM Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP certaiinly fine with me, but I would likely say "written Termination summary or Suspension summary". Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700 One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 ? Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman 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 theoriginal message. From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 1:26 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; randruff at rnapartners.com Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP In that case, would a 'written statement' containing the reasons for the recommended action and the consensus status per WG guidelines, if applicable, be a more accurate term for what you are looking for? A 'report' in the context of the PDP, is typically something much more substantial (incl. executive summary, attendance records, annexes, etc). Best regards, Marika From: , Anne Date: Monday 11 February 2013 19:57 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , "randruff at rnapartners.com" Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP @font-face { font-family: Wingdings; } @font-face { font-family: Tahoma; } @font-face { font-family: Calibri; } @font-face { font-family: Webdings; } @font-face { font-family: Century Gothic; } @font-face { font-family: MS ??; } @font-face { font-family: @MS ??; } @page Section1 {margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; } P.MSONORMAL { } LI.MSONORMAL { } DIV.MSONORMAL { } .MSOCHPDEFAULT { } TABLE.MSONORMALTABLE { } P.MSONORMAL { MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt } LI.MSONORMAL { MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt } DIV.MSONORMAL { MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt } A:link { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlink { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A:visited { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } P { FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in } SPAN.EmailStyle20 { FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: blue; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none } DIV.Section1 { } OL { MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in } UL { MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in } I had understood the language to specify that the elements required are the reasons for the recommended action and the consensus status per WG guidelines, if applicable. That does not seem to require further specification to me, but others may feel differently. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] Received: Monday, 11 Feb 2013, 11:28am To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Dear all, Thank you, Marika, for the clarifying points noted below. I would particularly like to draw Committee Members? attention to the last sentence under the 3rd bullet: ?If the SCI insists on requiring a 'Termination Report' or 'Suspension Report', it will be important to define which information is expected to be contained in such report as it is currently nowhere defined in the PDP manual.?. This is an important consideration in finalizing the suspension/termination language. Thank you, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. ( http://www.rnapartners.com ) From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 4:27 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Anne, As requested, please find attached the redline comparing the previous version from J. Scott with the latest one you circulated. A couple of comments: PDP Team is used throughout the PDP Manual as, even though the WG model is currently the preferred option to conduct a PDP, it foresees the possibility for the GNSO Council to choose another model should it decide so (e.g. Committee of the whole), hence the use of the term 'PDP Team'. There is a timing issue with having a seconded motion before a public comment period can be opened. The current practice of the GNSO Council is to only allow for one deferral of a motion, while a public comment forum may cover at least two Council meetings. It is not clear to me why a properly seconded motion would be needed before a public comment forum may be initiated (a public comment forum can be initiated by the Council or WG at any time it wants, there is no motion required to do so). Instead of mandating a written report, I had suggested that in order to allow for flexibility, there would be more discretion on the part of the Council liaison and/or WG to decide on the format in which they 'convey to the GNSO Council the reasons for the recommended action to be taken and, if applicable, the points of view represented in the Working Group and the consensus status (as defined by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines) at the time such action is recommended' (for example, this could be in the form of an email, letter or oral update to the GNSO Council). Especially since a safeguard has been added to require a written report at the request of any Council member, AC or Board. If the SCI insists on requiring a 'Termination Report' or 'Suspension Report', it will be important to define which information is expected to be contained in such report as it is currently nowhere defined in the PDP manual. With best regards, Marika From: , Anne Date: Saturday 9 February 2013 01:25 To: Marika Konings , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: RE: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Marisa, I have taken your language and condensed it a bit as well as trying to clarify that if there is no recommendation from the WG before the Council, then there would have to be a properly seconded motion in order to require the Council to seek public comment. I don't think anyone was intending to completely eliminate the requirement for a written report when the WG was making the recommendation. That written Termination Report or Suspension Report was mandatory where the recommendation for suspension or termination came from the WG. That improvement was at the very heart of this initiative and so that language has been added back where you had deleted it. On a more minor note, I also noticed that the earlier paragraphs in this same section refer to "PDP Team" and not "PDP Working Group". So I changed all the references to PDP Team. It seems it should be one or the other consistently throughout unless there is some difference I do not appreciate between a PDP Team and PDP WG. I also think it would be fine for all references to be to PDP WG and that is the term I hear used more often. Attached is a new Feb 8 draft with the changes accepted. While working on this, I ended up losing track of the status of my redline and would appreciate it if you could run a comparison btween this and the language the SCI reviewed in its last call so that all members can see the proposed changes in my draft. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700 One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 ? Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman 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 theoriginal 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: Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:10 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Dear All, As discussed yesterday, please find attached for your review the suggested modifications to the last version of the language concerning the termination or suspension of a PDP. With best regards, Marika For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: not available URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Thu Feb 14 14:13:45 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 06:13:45 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposed Agenda for 20 February SCI Meeting Message-ID: Dear SCI members, On behalf of Ron Andruff and Avri Doria, below for your consideration is a proposed agenda for the SCI meeting on 20 February 2013. Please let us know if you have any changes. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Proposed Agenda for 20 February SCI Meeting 1. Roll call (1 min) 2. Statements of Interest (1 min) 3. Approval of the agenda (1 min) 4. Termination and Suspension of a PDP (10 mins) 5. Re-submitting a motion (15 mins) 6. Charter Revision drafting team (10 mins) 7. Action on Working Group survey (10 mins) 8. Chair/Vice Chair elections and terms (SCI Charter change) (5 mins) 9. GNSO Council Liaison to the SCI (5 mins) ? Response from the Council to Chair's Request 10. AOB (2 mins) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com Sun Feb 17 18:26:37 2013 From: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com (Jonathan Robinson) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 18:26:37 -0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: SCI Liaison In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001101ce0d3c$54c09870$fe41c950$@ipracon.com> Dear Ron, Apologies for a little slow turnaround on this one. We had a monthly Council meeting last week so my plate was a little full. My personal feeling is that we should go for solution 1 suggested below supplemented by a variation off 2, i.e. that we invite the Chair &/or VC od the SCI to talk with the Council on specific issues as and when appropriate. With your permission, I'll send your note to the Council and likely cover it with my suggestion and then take feedback before making a final decision. Best wishes, Jonathan From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] Sent: 11 February 2013 18:21 To: 'Jonathan Robinson' Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; mcole at 5x5com.com Subject: SCI Liaison Dear Jonathan, Following the recent change of leadership of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI), with the former Chair being a member of the GNSO Council, the SCI is now in a situation where neither the Chair or the Vice-Chair are members of the GNSO Council. At the same time, the SCI is responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of recommendations that came out of the last GNSO review. The SCI considers it important to have a direct line of communication with the GNSO Council as most of the issues under consideration are a result of GNSO Council requests and SCI recommendations are likely to impact the GNSO Council operations. As a result, the SCI would like to propose that the GNSO Council consider appointing a liaison to the SCI. From the SCI's perspective, such a liaison could be appointed in two different ways: (1) a 'traditional' liaison is appointed by the GNSO Council, i.e. a member of the GNSO Council is appointed to serve as the liaison to the SCI as described in the GNSO Working Groups; or (2) the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the SCI serve as liaisons to the GNSO Council and are able to participate as observers in GNSO Council meetings either upon invitation (when issues of relevance are discussed) or as standing observers. Obviously it is the GNSO Council's prerogative to decide on the solution that is deemed most appropriate and effective. We look forward to receiving your feedback in due course. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff Chair SCI -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Mon Feb 18 23:07:45 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:07:45 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: SCI Liaison In-Reply-To: <001101ce0d3c$54c09870$fe41c950$@ipracon.com> Message-ID: <761E8A571E2741F78CCC3421F35DB3DC@ron> Dear Jonathan, Thank you for your response. Please feel free to proceed as you have outlined. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. _____ From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com] Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 1:27 PM To: 'Ron Andruff' Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; mcole at 5x5com.com Subject: RE: SCI Liaison Dear Ron, Apologies for a little slow turnaround on this one. We had a monthly Council meeting last week so my plate was a little full. My personal feeling is that we should go for solution 1 suggested below supplemented by a variation off 2, i.e. that we invite the Chair &/or VC od the SCI to talk with the Council on specific issues as and when appropriate. With your permission, I'll send your note to the Council and likely cover it with my suggestion and then take feedback before making a final decision. Best wishes, Jonathan From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] Sent: 11 February 2013 18:21 To: 'Jonathan Robinson' Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; mcole at 5x5com.com Subject: SCI Liaison Dear Jonathan, Following the recent change of leadership of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI), with the former Chair being a member of the GNSO Council, the SCI is now in a situation where neither the Chair or the Vice-Chair are members of the GNSO Council. At the same time, the SCI is responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of recommendations that came out of the last GNSO review. The SCI considers it important to have a direct line of communication with the GNSO Council as most of the issues under consideration are a result of GNSO Council requests and SCI recommendations are likely to impact the GNSO Council operations. As a result, the SCI would like to propose that the GNSO Council consider appointing a liaison to the SCI. From the SCI's perspective, such a liaison could be appointed in two different ways: (1) a 'traditional' liaison is appointed by the GNSO Council, i.e. a member of the GNSO Council is appointed to serve as the liaison to the SCI as described in the GNSO Working Groups; or (2) the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the SCI serve as liaisons to the GNSO Council and are able to participate as observers in GNSO Council meetings either upon invitation (when issues of relevance are discussed) or as standing observers. Obviously it is the GNSO Council's prerogative to decide on the solution that is deemed most appropriate and effective. We look forward to receiving your feedback in due course. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff Chair SCI -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marika.konings at icann.org Wed Feb 20 09:38:02 2013 From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 01:38:02 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Updated version - Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP In-Reply-To: <511967A7.D84C.005B.0@law.unh.edu> Message-ID: Not having seen any further comments, I've updated the latest version by changing 'report' to 'summary' and reinstated the term 'PDP Team'. One remaining item the SCI may want to discuss is whether the language in between brackets ('but there is a motion properly made and seconded to suspend or terminate the PDP prior to a Final Report') should remain. As noted in my previous comments 'There is a timing issue with having a seconded motion before a public comment period can be opened. The current practice of the GNSO Council is to only allow for one deferral of a motion, while a public comment forum may cover at least two Council meetings. It is not clear to me why a properly seconded motion would be needed before a public comment forum may be initiated (a public comment forum can be initiated by the Council or WG at any time it wants, there is no motion required to do so.' With best regards, Marika From: Mary Wong Date: Tuesday 12 February 2013 03:50 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Hi everyone - I support the idea of not requiring a report (for the reasons stated by Marika), and of substituting a written summary of some sort, the idea here being to capture the reasons and consensus status (as Anne mentions), which in my view can be achieved with the latter type of document rather than going down the road of expecting a full-blown report of the kind a PDP normally produces. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong 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: "'Marika Konings'" , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , "randruff at rnapartners.com" Date: 2/11/2013 4:02 PM Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP certaiinly fine with me, but I would likely say "written Termination summary or Suspension summary". Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700 One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 ? Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman 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: Monday, February 11, 2013 1:26 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; randruff at rnapartners.com Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP In that case, would a 'written statement' containing the reasons for the recommended action and the consensus status per WG guidelines, if applicable, be a more accurate term for what you are looking for? A 'report' in the context of the PDP, is typically something much more substantial (incl. executive summary, attendance records, annexes, etc). Best regards, Marika From: , Anne Date: Monday 11 February 2013 19:57 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , "randruff at rnapartners.com" Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP @font-face { font-family: Wingdings; } @font-face { font-family: Tahoma; } @font-face { font-family: Calibri; } @font-face { font-family: Webdings; } @font-face { font-family: Century Gothic; } @font-face { font-family: MS ??; } @font-face { font-family: @MS ??; } @page Section1 {margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; } P.MSONORMAL { } LI.MSONORMAL { } DIV.MSONORMAL { } .MSOCHPDEFAULT { } TABLE.MSONORMALTABLE { } P.MSONORMAL { MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt } LI.MSONORMAL { MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt } DIV.MSONORMAL { MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt } A:link { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlink { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A:visited { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } P { FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in } SPAN.EmailStyle20 { FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: blue; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none } DIV.Section1 { } OL { MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in } UL { MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in } I had understood the language to specify that the elements required are the reasons for the recommended action and the consensus status per WG guidelines, if applicable. That does not seem to require further specification to me, but others may feel differently. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] Received: Monday, 11 Feb 2013, 11:28am To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Dear all, Thank you, Marika, for the clarifying points noted below. I would particularly like to draw Committee Members? attention to the last sentence under the 3rd bullet: ?If the SCI insists on requiring a 'Termination Report' or 'Suspension Report', it will be important to define which information is expected to be contained in such report as it is currently nowhere defined in the PDP manual.?. This is an important consideration in finalizing the suspension/termination language. Thank you, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. 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, February 10, 2013 4:27 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Anne, As requested, please find attached the redline comparing the previous version from J. Scott with the latest one you circulated. A couple of comments: * * PDP Team is used throughout the PDP Manual as, even though the WG model is currently the preferred option to conduct a PDP, it foresees the possibility for the GNSO Council to choose another model should it decide so (e.g. Committee of the whole), hence the use of the term 'PDP Team'. * * * * There is a timing issue with having a seconded motion before a public comment period can be opened. The current practice of the GNSO Council is to only allow for one deferral of a motion, while a public comment forum may cover at least two Council meetings. It is not clear to me why a properly seconded motion would be needed before a public comment forum may be initiated (a public comment forum can be initiated by the Council or WG at any time it wants, there is no motion required to do so). * * * * Instead of mandating a written report, I had suggested that in order to allow for flexibility, there would be more discretion on the part of the Council liaison and/or WG to decide on the format in which they 'convey to the GNSO Council the reasons for the recommended action to be taken and, if applicable, the points of view represented in the Working Group and the consensus status (as defined by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines) at the time such action is recommended' (for example, this could be in the form of an email, letter or oral update to the GNSO Council). Especially since a safeguard has been added to require a written report at the request of any Council member, AC or Board. If the SCI insists on requiring a 'Termination Report' or 'Suspension Report', it will be important to define which information is expected to be contained in such report as it is currently nowhere defined in the PDP manual. * With best regards, Marika From: , Anne Date: Saturday 9 February 2013 01:25 To: Marika Konings , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: RE: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Marisa, I have taken your language and condensed it a bit as well as trying to clarify that if there is no recommendation from the WG before the Council, then there would have to be a properly seconded motion in order to require the Council to seek public comment. I don't think anyone was intending to completely eliminate the requirement for a written report when the WG was making the recommendation. That written Termination Report or Suspension Report was mandatory where the recommendation for suspension or termination came from the WG. That improvement was at the very heart of this initiative and so that language has been added back where you had deleted it. On a more minor note, I also noticed that the earlier paragraphs in this same section refer to "PDP Team" and not "PDP Working Group". So I changed all the references to PDP Team. It seems it should be one or the other consistently throughout unless there is some difference I do not appreciate between a PDP Team and PDP WG. I also think it would be fine for all references to be to PDP WG and that is the term I hear used more often. Attached is a new Feb 8 draft with the changes accepted. While working on this, I ended up losing track of the status of my redline and would appreciate it if you could run a comparison btween this and the language the SCI reviewed in its last call so that all members can see the proposed changes in my draft. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700 One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 ? Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman 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 Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:10 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Dear All, As discussed yesterday, please find attached for your review the suggested modifications to the last version of the language concerning the termination or suspension of a PDP. With best regards, Marika For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com . Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ATT00002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Suspension - Termination Updated - 20 February 2013.doc Type: application/msword Size: 30720 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5056 bytes Desc: not available URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Wed Feb 20 14:46:10 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 06:46:10 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re-Submitting a Motion: Suggestions from Sub-Group Message-ID: Dear SCI members, On behalf of Sub-Group that is considering the issue of re-submitting a motion (Anne Aikman-Scalese, Avri Doria, Thomas Rickert and Mary Wong) here are suggested approaches for your consideration. 1. Clarify that the Conflicts of Interest issue is separate from the issue of re-submitting a motion and the SCI has yet to discuss conflicts of interest 2. Possible Options for Addressing the Re-Submission of a Motion: a. Leave up to discretion of the Chair b. Set one or more high-level criteria (in this order): 1) Change in circumstance that merits the resubmission of a motion. 2) Publish the text of the re-submitted motion as of the deadline for submission of motions (8 days prior to the next Council meeting). 3) Require a seconder of the motion from each house as a prerequisite for placing the re-submission of the motion on the consent agenda. 4) Allow a councilor to ask for the re-submission of the motion to be taken off the consent agenda and to request a Council vote on whether to accept the re-submission. These also will be available in the Adobe Connect room for discussion at our meeting today. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Wed Feb 20 17:11:23 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:11:23 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Re-Submitting a Motion: Suggestions from Sub-Group In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973A399F8@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Thanks Julie. Do we have a revised draft from Marika of the PDP suspension language that includes my comments and the reference that Mary and I made to a written Termination summary or Suspension summary? Thank you, Anne [cid:278271017 at 20022013-1B79]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: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:46 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re-Submitting a Motion: Suggestions from Sub-Group Dear SCI members, On behalf of Sub-Group that is considering the issue of re-submitting a motion (Anne Aikman-Scalese, Avri Doria, Thomas Rickert and Mary Wong) here are suggested approaches for your consideration. 1. Clarify that the Conflicts of Interest issue is separate from the issue of re-submitting a motion and the SCI has yet to discuss conflicts of interest 2. Possible Options for Addressing the Re-Submission of a Motion: a. Leave up to discretion of the Chair b. Set one or more high-level criteria (in this order): 1) Change in circumstance that merits the resubmission of a motion. 2) Publish the text of the re-submitted motion as of the deadline for submission of motions (8 days prior to the next Council meeting). 3) Require a seconder of the motion from each house as a prerequisite for placing the re-submission of the motion on the consent agenda. 4) Allow a councilor to ask for the re-submission of the motion to be taken off the consent agenda and to request a Council vote on whether to accept the re-submission. These also will be available in the Adobe Connect room for discussion at our meeting today. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ________________________________ 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 AAikman at lrlaw.com Wed Feb 20 17:34:03 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:34:03 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Updated version - Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP In-Reply-To: References: <511967A7.D84C.005B.0@law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973A39B46@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Thanks Marika. This looks right. There may be one more reference to change as to PDP Team because there is langauge about "upon the recommendation of the PDP WG" - should this changed to "PDP Team" as well? I certainly agree with you about the motion and second question. I am just trying to address the issue of how we know that GNSO intends to actually take a vote on the suspension before putting something out for public comment. Hopefully we can talk about the procedural trigger for public comment on the call. Anne [cid:082262917 at 20022013-1B87]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700 One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman 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: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 2:38 AM To: Mary Wong; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Updated version - Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Not having seen any further comments, I've updated the latest version by changing 'report' to 'summary' and reinstated the term 'PDP Team'. One remaining item the SCI may want to discuss is whether the language in between brackets ('but there is a motion properly made and seconded to suspend or terminate the PDP prior to a Final Report') should remain. As noted in my previous comments 'There is a timing issue with having a seconded motion before a public comment period can be opened. The current practice of the GNSO Council is to only allow for one deferral of a motion, while a public comment forum may cover at least two Council meetings. It is not clear to me why a properly seconded motion would be needed before a public comment forum may be initiated (a public comment forum can be initiated by the Council or WG at any time it wants, there is no motion required to do so.' With best regards, Marika From: Mary Wong > Date: Tuesday 12 February 2013 03:50 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Hi everyone - I support the idea of not requiring a report (for the reasons stated by Marika), and of substituting a written summary of some sort, the idea here being to capture the reasons and consensus status (as Anne mentions), which in my view can be achieved with the latter type of document rather than going down the road of expecting a full-blown report of the kind a PDP normally produces. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong 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: "'Marika Konings'" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, "randruff at rnapartners.com" > Date: 2/11/2013 4:02 PM Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP certaiinly fine with me, but I would likely say "written Termination summary or Suspension summary". [cid:082262917 at 20022013-1B8E] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700 One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman 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: Monday, February 11, 2013 1:26 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; randruff at rnapartners.com Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP In that case, would a 'written statement' containing the reasons for the recommended action and the consensus status per WG guidelines, if applicable, be a more accurate term for what you are looking for? A 'report' in the context of the PDP, is typically something much more substantial (incl. executive summary, attendance records, annexes, etc). Best regards, Marika From: , Anne > Date: Monday 11 February 2013 19:57 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, "randruff at rnapartners.com" > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP @font-face { font-family: Wingdings; } @font-face { font-family: Tahoma; } @font-face { font-family: Calibri; } @font-face { font-family: Webdings; } @font-face { font-family: Century Gothic; } @font-face { font-family: MS ??; } @font-face { font-family: @MS ??; } @page Section1 {margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; } P.MSONORMAL { } LI.MSONORMAL { } DIV.MSONORMAL { } .MSOCHPDEFAULT { } TABLE.MSONORMALTABLE { } P.MSONORMAL { MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt } LI.MSONORMAL { MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt } DIV.MSONORMAL { MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt } A:link { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlink { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A:visited { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } P { FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in } SPAN.EmailStyle20 { FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: blue; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none } DIV.Section1 { } OL { MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in } UL { MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in } I had understood the language to specify that the elements required are the reasons for the recommended action and the consensus status per WG guidelines, if applicable. That does not seem to require further specification to me, but others may feel differently. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Ron Andruff [randruff at rnapartners.com] Received: Monday, 11 Feb 2013, 11:28am To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Dear all, Thank you, Marika, for the clarifying points noted below. I would particularly like to draw Committee Members' attention to the last sentence under the 3rd bullet: "If the SCI insists on requiring a 'Termination Report' or 'Suspension Report', it will be important to define which information is expected to be contained in such report as it is currently nowhere defined in the PDP manual.". This is an important consideration in finalizing the suspension/termination language. Thank you, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. ________________________________ 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, February 10, 2013 4:27 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Anne, As requested, please find attached the redline comparing the previous version from J. Scott with the latest one you circulated. A couple of comments: * PDP Team is used throughout the PDP Manual as, even though the WG model is currently the preferred option to conduct a PDP, it foresees the possibility for the GNSO Council to choose another model should it decide so (e.g. Committee of the whole), hence the use of the term 'PDP Team'. * There is a timing issue with having a seconded motion before a public comment period can be opened. The current practice of the GNSO Council is to only allow for one deferral of a motion, while a public comment forum may cover at least two Council meetings. It is not clear to me why a properly seconded motion would be needed before a public comment forum may be initiated (a public comment forum can be initiated by the Council or WG at any time it wants, there is no motion required to do so). * Instead of mandating a written report, I had suggested that in order to allow for flexibility, there would be more discretion on the part of the Council liaison and/or WG to decide on the format in which they 'convey to the GNSO Council the reasons for the recommended action to be taken and, if applicable, the points of view represented in the Working Group and the consensus status (as defined by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines) at the time such action is recommended' (for example, this could be in the form of an email, letter or oral update to the GNSO Council). Especially since a safeguard has been added to require a written report at the request of any Council member, AC or Board. If the SCI insists on requiring a 'Termination Report' or 'Suspension Report', it will be important to define which information is expected to be contained in such report as it is currently nowhere defined in the PDP manual. With best regards, Marika From: , Anne > Date: Saturday 9 February 2013 01:25 To: Marika Konings >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: RE: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Marisa, I have taken your language and condensed it a bit as well as trying to clarify that if there is no recommendation from the WG before the Council, then there would have to be a properly seconded motion in order to require the Council to seek public comment. I don't think anyone was intending to completely eliminate the requirement for a written report when the WG was making the recommendation. That written Termination Report or Suspension Report was mandatory where the recommendation for suspension or termination came from the WG. That improvement was at the very heart of this initiative and so that language has been added back where you had deleted it. On a more minor note, I also noticed that the earlier paragraphs in this same section refer to "PDP Team" and not "PDP Working Group". So I changed all the references to PDP Team. It seems it should be one or the other consistently throughout unless there is some difference I do not appreciate between a PDP Team and PDP WG. I also think it would be fine for all references to be to PDP WG and that is the term I hear used more often. Attached is a new Feb 8 draft with the changes accepted. While working on this, I ended up losing track of the status of my redline and would appreciate it if you could run a comparison btween this and the language the SCI reviewed in its last call so that all members can see the proposed changes in my draft. Thank you, Anne [cid:082262917 at 20022013-1B95] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700 One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman 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 Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:10 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP Dear All, As discussed yesterday, please find attached for your review the suggested modifications to the last version of the language concerning the termination or suspension of a PDP. With best regards, Marika ________________________________ For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. -------------- 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: ATT00001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: ATT00001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ATT00002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: ATT00002.gif URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Wed Feb 20 17:52:43 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:52:43 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Re-Submitting a Motion: Suggestions from Sub-Group In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973A399F8@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973A399F8@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973A39DB8@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Never mind - found it. THank you. [cid:622295217 at 20022013-1BCD]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 Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 10:11 AM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Re-Submitting a Motion: Suggestions from Sub-Group Thanks Julie. Do we have a revised draft from Marika of the PDP suspension language that includes my comments and the reference that Mary and I made to a written Termination summary or Suspension summary? Thank you, Anne [cid:622295217 at 20022013-1BD4]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: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:46 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re-Submitting a Motion: Suggestions from Sub-Group Dear SCI members, On behalf of Sub-Group that is considering the issue of re-submitting a motion (Anne Aikman-Scalese, Avri Doria, Thomas Rickert and Mary Wong) here are suggested approaches for your consideration. 1. Clarify that the Conflicts of Interest issue is separate from the issue of re-submitting a motion and the SCI has yet to discuss conflicts of interest 2. Possible Options for Addressing the Re-Submission of a Motion: a. Leave up to discretion of the Chair b. Set one or more high-level criteria (in this order): 1) Change in circumstance that merits the resubmission of a motion. 2) Publish the text of the re-submitted motion as of the deadline for submission of motions (8 days prior to the next Council meeting). 3) Require a seconder of the motion from each house as a prerequisite for placing the re-submission of the motion on the consent agenda. 4) Allow a councilor to ask for the re-submission of the motion to be taken off the consent agenda and to request a Council vote on whether to accept the re-submission. These also will be available in the Adobe Connect room for discussion at our meeting today. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ________________________________ 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de Wed Feb 20 19:39:39 2013 From: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 20:39:39 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?=5Bgnso-improvem-impl-sc=5D?= Proposed Agenda for 20 February SCI Meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1U8FVz-1ssbr60@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> All, please apologize that I can't make today's call. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Original Message----- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:13:45 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposed Agenda for 20 February SCI Meeting From: Julie Hedlund To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Dear SCI members, On behalf of Ron Andruff and Avri Doria, below for your consideration is a proposed agenda for the SCI meeting on 20 February 2013. Please let us know if you have any changes. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Proposed Agenda for 20 February SCI Meeting 1. Roll call (1 min) 2. Statements of Interest (1 min) 3. Approval of the agenda (1 min) 4. Termination and Suspension of a PDP (10 mins) 5. Re-submitting a motion (15 mins) 6. Charter Revision drafting team (10 mins) 7. Action on Working Group survey (10 mins) 8. Chair/Vice Chair elections and terms (SCI Charter change) (5 mins) 9. GNSO Council Liaison to the SCI (5 mins) ? Response from the Council to Chair's Request 10. AOB (2 mins) From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Wed Feb 20 19:48:32 2013 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:48:32 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposed Agenda for 20 February SCI Meeting In-Reply-To: <1U8FVz-1ssbr60@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> References: <1U8FVz-1ssbr60@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: Dear Wolf Ulrich, Thank you for this, apology noted. Kindest regards Nathalie -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de Sent: mercredi 20 f?vrier 2013 20:40 To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposed Agenda for 20 February SCI Meeting All, please apologize that I can't make today's call. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Original Message----- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:13:45 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposed Agenda for 20 February SCI Meeting From: Julie Hedlund To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Dear SCI members, On behalf of Ron Andruff and Avri Doria, below for your consideration is a proposed agenda for the SCI meeting on 20 February 2013. Please let us know if you have any changes. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Proposed Agenda for 20 February SCI Meeting 1. Roll call (1 min) 2. Statements of Interest (1 min) 3. Approval of the agenda (1 min) 4. Termination and Suspension of a PDP (10 mins) 5. Re-submitting a motion (15 mins) 6. Charter Revision drafting team (10 mins) 7. Action on Working Group survey (10 mins) 8. Chair/Vice Chair elections and terms (SCI Charter change) (5 mins) 9. GNSO Council Liaison to the SCI (5 mins) - Response from the Council to Chair's Request 10. AOB (2 mins) From julie.hedlund at icann.org Wed Feb 20 22:22:42 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:22:42 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items from SCI Meeting 20 February In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear All, Thank you for participating in today's SCI meeting. Please note the action items below. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/20+February+2013. Please let me know if you have any comments, questions, or changes. With best regards, Julie Action Items: SCI Meeting of 20 February 2013 * Termination and Suspension of a PDP ? Staff: Change "PDP WG" to "PDP Team"; produce clean version for final review * Re-Submitting a Motion -- Staff: change (1) to requirement to provide a reasoning for the re-submission 8 days prior to the meeting; SCI members: Take the revised text to the Constituencies/SGs for comments. * Charter Revision Drafting Team -- Volunteers: Avri Doria, Angie Graves, James Bladel, J.Scott; Staff: Set up an initial call. * Working Group Survey: Staff -- Resend the summary of the survey; move to the top of the agenda for the 06 March meeting. * Chair/Vice Chair Elections -- Fold this into changes to the entire charter; submit all revisions to the Council at the same time. * GNSO Council Liaison -- The Council will appoint one of the Council members who also is an SCI member. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Wed Feb 20 22:25:10 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 22:25:10 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Action items from SCI Meeting 20 February In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973A3ACD9@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Thanks Julie - all looks good! Anne [cid:461592422 at 20022013-198E]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: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 3:23 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items from SCI Meeting 20 February Dear All, Thank you for participating in today's SCI meeting. Please note the action items below. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/20+February+2013. Please let me know if you have any comments, questions, or changes. With best regards, Julie Action Items: SCI Meeting of 20 February 2013 * Termination and Suspension of a PDP ? Staff: Change "PDP WG" to "PDP Team"; produce clean version for final review * Re-Submitting a Motion -- Staff: change (1) to requirement to provide a reasoning for the re-submission 8 days prior to the meeting; SCI members: Take the revised text to the Constituencies/SGs for comments. * Charter Revision Drafting Team -- Volunteers: Avri Doria, Angie Graves, James Bladel, J.Scott; Staff: Set up an initial call. * Working Group Survey: Staff -- Resend the summary of the survey; move to the top of the agenda for the 06 March meeting. * Chair/Vice Chair Elections -- Fold this into changes to the entire charter; submit all revisions to the Council at the same time. * GNSO Council Liaison -- The Council will appoint one of the Council members who also is an SCI member. ________________________________ 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 Wed Feb 20 22:38:42 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:38:42 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Resend: Working Group Survey Results and Comments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Attached is the summary of the survey results originally sent on 24 January. The summary does not include specific comments, so I have provided them as a separate attached document. Please note that the survey results do not capture the names of respondents as these were not requested in the survey questions. Nearly all the comments address the Working Group Guidelines as opposed to the substance of the survey itself. The only comment that addresses the survey (below) does not suggest a change to the content of it: "Comment 3: i think it is a fine questionnaire for anyone who wasn't part of the WG Sub Group. bet you can guess who filled in this form." Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Working Group Survey Results 24 Jan 2013.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 28274 bytes Desc: Working Group Survey Results 24 Jan 2013.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Working Group Survey Comments 24 Jan 2013.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 116330 bytes Desc: GNSO Working Group Survey Comments 24 Jan 2013.docx URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Wed Feb 20 23:10:58 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:10:58 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items from SCI Meeting 20 February In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <0B9C03E016644F1FAEEE53B395B86EFB@ron> Thanks for the prompt posting of action items, Julie. One correction: GNSO Council Liaison - The Council will appoint one of the Council members to the SCI. (Neither Jonathan, nor I, discussed who the liaison would be. Jonathan is going to bring this discussion to Council and then revert back to us with the name of the appointee. If you could make that correction and then re-post that would be appreciated. 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 Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 5:23 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items from SCI Meeting 20 February Dear All, Thank you for participating in today's SCI meeting. Please note the action items below. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/20+February+2013. Please let me know if you have any comments, questions, or changes. With best regards, Julie Action Items: SCI Meeting of 20 February 2013 * Termination and Suspension of a PDP - Staff: Change "PDP WG" to "PDP Team"; produce clean version for final review * Re-Submitting a Motion -- Staff: change (1) to requirement to provide a reasoning for the re-submission 8 days prior to the meeting; SCI members: Take the revised text to the Constituencies/SGs for comments. * Charter Revision Drafting Team -- Volunteers: Avri Doria, Angie Graves, James Bladel, J.Scott; Staff: Set up an initial call. * Working Group Survey: Staff -- Resend the summary of the survey; move to the top of the agenda for the 06 March meeting. * Chair/Vice Chair Elections -- Fold this into changes to the entire charter; submit all revisions to the Council at the same time. * GNSO Council Liaison -- The Council will appoint one of the Council members who also is an SCI member. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Wed Feb 20 23:14:53 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:14:53 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re-Submitting a Motion - Revision 20 February In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Based on our discussion today, please see below revised options. Please let me know if you have any changes. Once the SCI agrees to the options for consideration, the action is for members to circulate them to their Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups. These also are posted to the wiki. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Possible Options for Addressing the Re-Submission of a Motion: 1. Leave up to discretion of the Chair 2. Set one or more high-level criteria (in this order): 1) Provide a reasoning to justify the resubmission of a motion. Complete no later than the deadline for submitting a motion -- 8 days prior to the next GNSO Council meeting. 2) Publish the text of the re-submitted motion. Complete no later than the deadline for submitting a motion -- 8 days prior to the next GNSO Council meeting. 3) Require a seconder of the motion from each house as a prerequisite for placing the re-submission of the motion on the consent agenda. 4) Allow a councilor to ask for the re-submission of the motion to be taken off the consent agenda and to request a Council vote on whether to accept the re-submission. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Wed Feb 20 23:21:24 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:21:24 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items from SCI Meeting 20 February In-Reply-To: <0B9C03E016644F1FAEEE53B395B86EFB@ron> Message-ID: Ron, I apologize. I inadvertently captured what I had noted from the discussion on the Council list yesterday, that is, that the current proposal is that one of the SCI members who also was a councilor would have the option of volunteering to be the liaison. However, it is more appropriate to capture what was discussed in the SCI meeting. Here are the revised actions. These also are posted to the wiki. Action Items: SCI Meeting of 20 February 2013 * Termination and Suspension of a PDP ? Staff: Change "PDP WG" to "PDP Team"; produce clean version for final review * Re-Submitting a Motion -- Staff: change (1) to requirement to provide a reasoning for the re-submission 8 days prior to the meeting; SCI members: Take the revised text to the Constituencies/SGs for comments. * Charter Revision Drafting Team -- Volunteers: Avri Doria, Angie Graves, James Bladel, J.Scott; Staff: Set up an initial call. * Working Group Survey: Staff -- Resend the summary of the survey; move to the top of the agenda for the 06 March meeting. * Chair/Vice Chair Elections -- Fold this into changes to the entire charter; submit all revisions to the Council at the same time. * GNSO Council Liaison -- The Council will appoint one of the Council members to the SCI. Best regards, Julie From: Ron Andruff > Organization: RNA Partners Date: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 6:10 PM To: Julie Hedlund >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items from SCI Meeting 20 February Thanks for the prompt posting of action items, Julie. One correction: GNSO Council Liaison ? The Council will appoint one of the Council members to the SCI. (Neither Jonathan, nor I, discussed who the liaison would be. Jonathan is going to bring this discussion to Council and then revert back to us with the name of the appointee. If you could make that correction and then re-post that would be appreciated. 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 Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 5:23 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items from SCI Meeting 20 February Dear All, Thank you for participating in today's SCI meeting. Please note the action items below. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/20+February+2013. Please let me know if you have any comments, questions, or changes. With best regards, Julie Action Items: SCI Meeting of 20 February 2013 * Termination and Suspension of a PDP ? Staff: Change "PDP WG" to "PDP Team"; produce clean version for final review * Re-Submitting a Motion -- Staff: change (1) to requirement to provide a reasoning for the re-submission 8 days prior to the meeting; SCI members: Take the revised text to the Constituencies/SGs for comments. * Charter Revision Drafting Team -- Volunteers: Avri Doria, Angie Graves, James Bladel, J.Scott; Staff: Set up an initial call. * Working Group Survey: Staff -- Resend the summary of the survey; move to the top of the agenda for the 06 March meeting. * Chair/Vice Chair Elections -- Fold this into changes to the entire charter; submit all revisions to the Council at the same time. * GNSO Council Liaison -- The Council will appoint one of the Council members who also is an SCI member. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Wed Feb 20 23:29:31 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:29:31 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items from SCI Meeting 20 February In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thank you Julie. 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 Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 6:21 PM To: Ron Andruff; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items from SCI Meeting 20 February Ron, I apologize. I inadvertently captured what I had noted from the discussion on the Council list yesterday, that is, that the current proposal is that one of the SCI members who also was a councilor would have the option of volunteering to be the liaison. However, it is more appropriate to capture what was discussed in the SCI meeting. Here are the revised actions. These also are posted to the wiki. Action Items: SCI Meeting of 20 February 2013 * Termination and Suspension of a PDP - Staff: Change "PDP WG" to "PDP Team"; produce clean version for final review * Re-Submitting a Motion -- Staff: change (1) to requirement to provide a reasoning for the re-submission 8 days prior to the meeting; SCI members: Take the revised text to the Constituencies/SGs for comments. * Charter Revision Drafting Team -- Volunteers: Avri Doria, Angie Graves, James Bladel, J.Scott; Staff: Set up an initial call. * Working Group Survey: Staff -- Resend the summary of the survey; move to the top of the agenda for the 06 March meeting. * Chair/Vice Chair Elections -- Fold this into changes to the entire charter; submit all revisions to the Council at the same time. * GNSO Council Liaison -- The Council will appoint one of the Council members to the SCI. Best regards, Julie From: Ron Andruff Organization: RNA Partners Date: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 6:10 PM To: Julie Hedlund , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items from SCI Meeting 20 February Thanks for the prompt posting of action items, Julie. One correction: GNSO Council Liaison - The Council will appoint one of the Council members to the SCI. (Neither Jonathan, nor I, discussed who the liaison would be. Jonathan is going to bring this discussion to Council and then revert back to us with the name of the appointee. If you could make that correction and then re-post that would be appreciated. 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 Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 5:23 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items from SCI Meeting 20 February Dear All, Thank you for participating in today's SCI meeting. Please note the action items below. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/20+February+2013. Please let me know if you have any comments, questions, or changes. With best regards, Julie Action Items: SCI Meeting of 20 February 2013 * Termination and Suspension of a PDP - Staff: Change "PDP WG" to "PDP Team"; produce clean version for final review * Re-Submitting a Motion -- Staff: change (1) to requirement to provide a reasoning for the re-submission 8 days prior to the meeting; SCI members: Take the revised text to the Constituencies/SGs for comments. * Charter Revision Drafting Team -- Volunteers: Avri Doria, Angie Graves, James Bladel, J.Scott; Staff: Set up an initial call. * Working Group Survey: Staff -- Resend the summary of the survey; move to the top of the agenda for the 06 March meeting. * Chair/Vice Chair Elections -- Fold this into changes to the entire charter; submit all revisions to the Council at the same time. * GNSO Council Liaison -- The Council will appoint one of the Council members who also is an SCI member. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Wed Feb 20 23:45:33 2013 From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:45:33 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re-Submitting a Motion - Revision 20 February In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <512519CD0200005B000A2620@smtp.law.unh.edu> Thanks for the quick turnaround, Julie! It looks fine to me - one question I had for everyone, in light of some of the discussion earlier today, is whether we ought to include a short explanatory note after setting out the options. Basically, I had in mind something like this: Notes: - 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 are conjunctive criteria, i.e. all three steps have to be completed. - 2.3 and 2.4 relate only to how the resubmitted motion is placed back on the Council's agenda, i.e. they take place prior to the Council's actually discussing (and voting on) the actual substance of the resubmitted motion, and allow for the possibility of there being a vote on whether to accept the resubmission itself in the first place. 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: Julie Hedlund To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Date: 2/20/2013 6:15 PM Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re-Submitting a Motion - Revision 20 February Dear SCI members, Based on our discussion today, please see below revised options. Please let me know if you have any changes. Once the SCI agrees to the options for consideration, the action is for members to circulate them to their Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups. These also are posted to the wiki. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Possible Options for Addressing the Re-Submission of a Motion: 1. Leave up to discretion of the Chair 2. Set one or more high-level criteria (in this order): 1) Provide a reasoning to justify the resubmission of a motion. Complete no later than the deadline for submitting a motion -- 8 days prior to the next GNSO Council meeting. 2) Publish the text of the re-submitted motion. Complete no later than the deadline for submitting a motion -- 8 days prior to the next GNSO Council meeting. 3) Require a seconder of the motion from each house as a prerequisite for placing the re-submission of the motion on the consent agenda. 4) Allow a councilor to ask for the re-submission of the motion to be taken off the consent agenda and to request a Council vote on whether to accept the re-submission. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Thu Feb 21 08:05:22 2013 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 00:05:22 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] MP3 recording of the SCI meeting - 20 February 2013 Message-ID: Dear All, The next meeting of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting will be held on Wednesday, 06 Mars 2013 at 21:00 UTC. Please note Wednesday at 21:00 UTC is the new time for regular meetings every two weeks! Please find the MP3 recording of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Wednesday, 20 February 2013 at 21:00UTC. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20130220-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#feb (transcripts and recording are found on the calendar page) 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 Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC Primary J. Scott Evans - IPC - Alternate Avri Doria - Non Commercial SG - Primary - vice chair Jennifer Wolfe - NCA primary Thomas Rickert - NCA - Alternate Amr Elsadr - NCUC - Alternate Angie Graves - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Alternate Mary Wong - NCUC - Primary Apologies : Wolf-Ulrich Knoben - ISPCP - Primary James Bladel - RrSG - Primary Marika Konings ICANN Staff: Julie Hedlund Nathalie Peregrine ** 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 - Alternate Anne Aikman Scalese - IPC - Primary 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 Jeff Neuman - RySG - Alternate Jonathan Robinson - GNSO Chair - Observer Mason Cole - GNSO Vice Chair - Observer Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie Adobe Connect chat transcript 20 February 2013: Julie Hedlund:Good morning, good afternoon, good evening everyone Ron A:Good afternoon, all Nathalie Peregrine:Hello! Julie Hedlund:Hello Ron! Amr Elsadr:Hi Avri. J. Scott:I am on hold trying to get an operator. J. Scott:I am here now! Nathalie Peregrine:Jennifer Wolfe will be dialling in shortly Jennifer Wolfe:My apologies for being late to the call. Julie Hedlund:I defer to Avri Avri Doria:Where is PDP TEAM defined? Avri Doria:i dont remeber it as a defined term, that is why i asked. J. Scott:So we have Working Group Guidelines, do they applcy to PDP Teams? J. Scott:This is exactly the type of change that can cause a great deal of confusion. Avri Doria:i cant seem to download the latest versio of the bylaws. http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf without requiring a new adobe something or other. Avri Doria:PDP Team defined in Annex 9. form a working group, task force, committeeof the whole or drafting team (the "PDP Team") Avri Doria:s/9/9 section 2/ Avri Doria:i mean s 9/2 section 9/ Julie Hedlund:Any Council member can request a public comment Julie Hedlund:"a public comment period will be initiated on the request of any Council member" ? J. Scott:I disagree. Avri Doria:i think any council emnet can request a vote of the counci for a comment period. Avri Doria:... council member ... Nathalie Peregrine:Angie Graves has joined the audio bridge Angie Graves:Very late. Apologies. Thank you. Julie Hedlund:"if ny Council member proposes termination or suspension" Nathalie Peregrine:Mary Wong has joined the audio bridge Amr Elsadr:Thanks Ron. :) Mary Wong:Hi, sorry - got called into a last minute meeting at work. Actually have to jump off shortly too but hopefully can stay on for this sub-team discussion for a bit. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Cannot take credit because I had to miss the call. Sorry but good work was done by Mary and Thomas! Avri Doria:i dont think i actually did anyting Avri Doria:i have certainly never been in favor of 2a. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Avri, I think Mary and THomas were just reflecting J. Scott's view in 2 a Avri Doria:thanks. it certainly is an option. Thomas Rickert:Mary, I have nothing to add! J. Scott:What is a "change in circumstances"? Julie Hedlund:All: I've jabbered Marika: re: "PDP Team" she provides this: of the whole or drafting team (the "PDP Team"), to perform the PDP activities. The preferred model forthe PDP Team is the Working Group model due to the availability of specific Working Group rules andprocedures that are included in the GNSO Operating Rules and Procedures. The GNSO Council shouldnot select another model for conducting PDPs unless the GNSO Council first identifies the specific rulesand procedures to guide the PDP Team's deliberations which should at a minimum include those set forthin the ICANN Bylaws and PDP Manual. Thomas Rickert:I am happy with the language suggested by J Scott Anne Aikman-Scalese:@Julie, you and Marika should determine where to use PDP Team and where to use WG - to b consistent with the rest of this section in the reivsed manual J. Scott:My thought was that the reasoning would be submitted at the same time the Motion is resubmitted (8-days prior) Avri Doria:this is way complicated for today's council members. can you imagine this g-council understanding this? Mary Wong:@Avri, the first challenge will be to write it up and get it before the Council as a draft proposal to amend the GNSO Procedures :) Thomas Rickert:Since I am a member of the current G-council I am optimistic :-) Avri Doria:Thomas, I respect you for that, but just remember the degree of understand of the Operating Principles that go us into even having to consider this proposal. Thomas Rickert:The reason for me being optimistic is that in the light of the recent happenings I am quite sure that Councillors have either familiarized themselfes with the procesures now or are at least willing to do so. Mary Wong:Sorry, all, have to ring off for *another* call - thanks for the great discussion and I'll catch up on what I missed via MP3 etc. Take care! Avri Doria:from the previous item, Julie sent out the survey Comment on 31 January 2013 10:00:42 EST, fro a quick review there are no comments about the survey itself. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Thanks Mary - bye for now.. Anne Amr Elsadr:It looks like all the documents relevant to the agenda items are not on the SCI confluence page. Any chance they could be posted there? Julie Hedlund:They should be there, but I will make sure they are Julie Hedlund:They should be on the page for the relevant meeting -- in this case the 20 Feb meeting Amr Elsadr:Thanks Julie. That would be helpful in bringing me up to speed. Julie Hedlund:You are welcome Amr Amr Elsadr:OK..., now I see it. Thanks again, Julie. Thomas Rickert:Thanks, Ron! Avri Doria:yay, the end of 7 hours of ICANN mtgs today. Avri Doria:thanks all Amr Elsadr:Thanks everyone. Julie Hedlund:Thanks everyone! Anne Aikman-Scalese:Thanks everyone Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese:Congrats Avri J. Scott:good bye Nathalie Peregrine GNSO Secretariat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Thu Feb 21 15:12:27 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 07:12:27 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised Suspension - Termination of a PDP Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Per our discussion on yesterday's call, attached for your review (in Word and PDF) is the revised text of the section on termination and suspension of a PDP with all previous edits accepted. I have included, as the only redline, the one change suggested by Anne in the meeting. The revised document is attached and also posted on the 06 March meeting page under the heading "For Review" at https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/06+March+2013. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Suspension - Termination Rev 20 February 2013.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 51835 bytes Desc: Suspension - Termination Rev 20 February 2013.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Suspension - Termination Rev 20 February 2013.doc Type: application/msword Size: 29696 bytes Desc: Suspension - Termination Rev 20 February 2013.doc URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Thu Feb 21 16:11:18 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:11:18 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised Suspension - Termination of a PDP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973A3BD6D@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Thanks Julie. Looks good. I think we are finally done! Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund at icann.org] Received: Thursday, 21 Feb 2013, 8:13am To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised Suspension - Termination of a PDP Dear SCI members, Per our discussion on yesterday's call, attached for your review (in Word and PDF) is the revised text of the section on termination and suspension of a PDP with all previous edits accepted. I have included, as the only redline, the one change suggested by Anne in the meeting. The revised document is attached and also posted on the 06 March meeting page under the heading "For Review" at https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/06+March+2013. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ________________________________ 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 Thu Feb 21 16:53:54 2013 From: jscottevans at yahoo.com (J. Scott Evans) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 08:53:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised Suspension - Termination of a PDP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1361465634.76285.YahooMailNeo@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Thanks Julie. ?This wording works for me too. J. Scott ? j. scott evans - ?head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com ________________________________ From: Julie Hedlund To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:12 AM Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised Suspension - Termination of a PDP Dear SCI members, Per our discussion on yesterday's call, attached for your review (in Word and PDF) is the revised text of the section on termination and suspension of a PDP with all previous edits accepted. ?I have included, as the only redline, the one change suggested by Anne in the meeting. ?The revised document is attached and also posted on the 06 March meeting page under the heading "For Review" at?https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/06+March+2013.? Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Thu Feb 21 17:14:22 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:14:22 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: CONCENSUS on Revised Suspension - Termination of a PDP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5E3FA90CA33F4432830BF8457555A675@ron> Dear Committee Members, Julie sent out the revised language on the Termination and Suspension with attachments this morning and the link to the doc (on our wiki) is noted below for easy reference. It appears that we have this matter ready to go back to the GNSO Council, but before sending it over we need the other constituencies (primary or secondary member) to confirm your agreement so that we have consensus. At this point it has IPC and BC support. Thank you all for your prompt attention to this matter. 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 Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 10:12 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised Suspension - Termination of a PDP Dear SCI members, Per our discussion on yesterday's call, attached for your review (in Word and PDF) is the revised text of the section on termination and suspension of a PDP with all previous edits accepted. I have included, as the only redline, the one change suggested by Anne in the meeting. The revised document is attached and also posted on the 06 March meeting page under the heading "For Review" at https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/06+March+2013. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alain.berranger at gmail.com Thu Feb 21 18:12:52 2013 From: alain.berranger at gmail.com (Alain Berranger) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 19:12:52 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: CONCENSUS on Revised Suspension - Termination of a PDP In-Reply-To: <5E3FA90CA33F4432830BF8457555A675@ron> References: <5E3FA90CA33F4432830BF8457555A675@ron> Message-ID: Dear Ron, You have my support as primary rep for NPOC... I am still recruiting for a secondary rep. Best, Alain On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Ron Andruff wrote: > Dear Committee Members,**** > > ** ** > > Julie sent out the revised language on the Termination and Suspension with > attachments this morning and the link to the doc (on our wiki) is noted > below for easy reference. **** > > ** ** > > It appears that we have this matter ready to go back to the GNSO Council, > but before sending it over we need the other constituencies (primary or > secondary member) to confirm your agreement so that we have consensus. At > this point it has IPC and BC support.**** > > ** ** > > Thank you all for your prompt attention to this matter.**** > > ** ** > > 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 *Julie Hedlund > *Sent:* Thursday, February 21, 2013 10:12 AM > *To:* gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > *Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised Suspension - Termination of a > PDP**** > > ** ** > > Dear SCI members,**** > > ** ** > > Per our discussion on yesterday's call, attached for your review (in Word > and PDF) is the revised text of the section on termination and suspension > of a PDP with all previous edits accepted. I have included, as the only > redline, the one change suggested by Anne in the meeting. The revised > document is attached and also posted on the 06 March meeting page under the > heading "For Review" at > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/06+March+2013. **** > > ** ** > > Best regards,**** > > ** ** > > Julie**** > > ** ** > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director**** > -- 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 Thu Feb 21 18:24:03 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:24:03 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: CONCENSUS on Revised Suspension - Termination of a PDP In-Reply-To: <5E3FA90CA33F4432830BF8457555A675@ron> Message-ID: Ron, Just a reminder that before this can go to the Council it will need to go out for public comment because the revisions are substantial. It is helpful to know whether all agree that this version is the one we want to send out for comment, and then the next steps are as follows: 1. 30-day comment period in the public forum 2. Reply period (only if necessary) 3. Analysis and consideration of comments (if any) 4. Revisions resulting from comments (if necessary) 5. Final version to Council for approval Best regards, Julie From: Ron Andruff > Organization: RNA Partners Date: Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:14 PM To: Julie Hedlund >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: RE: CONCENSUS on Revised Suspension - Termination of a PDP Dear Committee Members, Julie sent out the revised language on the Termination and Suspension with attachments this morning and the link to the doc (on our wiki) is noted below for easy reference. It appears that we have this matter ready to go back to the GNSO Council, but before sending it over we need the other constituencies (primary or secondary member) to confirm your agreement so that we have consensus. At this point it has IPC and BC support. Thank you all for your prompt attention to this matter. 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 Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 10:12 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised Suspension - Termination of a PDP Dear SCI members, Per our discussion on yesterday's call, attached for your review (in Word and PDF) is the revised text of the section on termination and suspension of a PDP with all previous edits accepted. I have included, as the only redline, the one change suggested by Anne in the meeting. The revised document is attached and also posted on the 06 March meeting page under the heading "For Review" at https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/06+March+2013. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Thu Feb 21 18:38:25 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 13:38:25 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: CONCENSUS on Revised Suspension - Termination of a PDP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5C9315A469AF45DE91308E585C2C1177@ron> Thank you for ensuring that we follow proper protocol, Julie. I will be more mindful of this with future issues. 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 Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:24 PM To: Ron Andruff; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: CONCENSUS on Revised Suspension - Termination of a PDP Ron, Just a reminder that before this can go to the Council it will need to go out for public comment because the revisions are substantial. It is helpful to know whether all agree that this version is the one we want to send out for comment, and then the next steps are as follows: 1. 30-day comment period in the public forum 2. Reply period (only if necessary) 3. Analysis and consideration of comments (if any) 4. Revisions resulting from comments (if necessary) 5. Final version to Council for approval Best regards, Julie From: Ron Andruff Organization: RNA Partners Date: Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:14 PM To: Julie Hedlund , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: RE: CONCENSUS on Revised Suspension - Termination of a PDP Dear Committee Members, Julie sent out the revised language on the Termination and Suspension with attachments this morning and the link to the doc (on our wiki) is noted below for easy reference. It appears that we have this matter ready to go back to the GNSO Council, but before sending it over we need the other constituencies (primary or secondary member) to confirm your agreement so that we have consensus. At this point it has IPC and BC support. Thank you all for your prompt attention to this matter. 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 Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 10:12 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised Suspension - Termination of a PDP Dear SCI members, Per our discussion on yesterday's call, attached for your review (in Word and PDF) is the revised text of the section on termination and suspension of a PDP with all previous edits accepted. I have included, as the only redline, the one change suggested by Anne in the meeting. The revised document is attached and also posted on the 06 March meeting page under the heading "For Review" at https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/06+March+2013. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Thu Feb 21 18:53:31 2013 From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 13:53:31 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: CONCENSUS on Revised Suspension - Termination of a PDP In-Reply-To: <5C9315A469AF45DE91308E585C2C1177@ron> References: <5C9315A469AF45DE91308E585C2C1177@ron> Message-ID: <512626DB0200005B000A271C@smtp.law.unh.edu> Hi - Avri has circulated the latest draft to the NCSG Policy Committee, and we hope to have formal sign-off shortly. 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: "Ron Andruff" To: "'Julie Hedlund'" , Date: 2/21/2013 1:40 PM Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: CONCENSUS on Revised Suspension - Termination of a PDP Thank you for ensuring that we follow proper protocol, Julie. I will be more mindful of this with future issues. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. ( http://www.rnapartners.com ) 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, February 21, 2013 1:24 PM To: Ron Andruff; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: CONCENSUS on Revised Suspension - Termination of a PDP Ron, Just a reminder that before this can go to the Council it will need to go out for public comment because the revisions are substantial. It is helpful to know whether all agree that this version is the one we want to send out for comment, and then the next steps are as follows: 1. 30-day comment period in the public forum 2. Reply period (only if necessary) 3. Analysis and consideration of comments (if any) 4. Revisions resulting from comments (if necessary) 5. Final version to Council for approval Best regards, Julie From: Ron Andruff Organization: RNA Partners Date: Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:14 PM To: Julie Hedlund , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: RE: CONCENSUS on Revised Suspension - Termination of a PDP Dear Committee Members, Julie sent out the revised language on the Termination and Suspension with attachments this morning and the link to the doc (on our wiki) is noted below for easy reference. It appears that we have this matter ready to go back to the GNSO Council, but before sending it over we need the other constituencies (primary or secondary member) to confirm your agreement so that we have consensus. At this point it has IPC and BC support. Thank you all for your prompt attention to this matter. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. ( http://www.rnapartners.com ) 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, February 21, 2013 10:12 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised Suspension - Termination of a PDP Dear SCI members, Per our discussion on yesterday's call, attached for your review (in Word and PDF) is the revised text of the section on termination and suspension of a PDP with all previous edits accepted. I have included, as the only redline, the one change suggested by Anne in the meeting. The revised document is attached and also posted on the 06 March meeting page under the heading "For Review" at https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/06+March+2013. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Thu Feb 21 20:08:36 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 15:08:36 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Beijing face-to-face meeting Message-ID: <436CB5FC01F24B2B87D98E46808FC03E@ron> Dear Committee Members, I apologize for not remembering to bring this up on our call yesterday, but I would like to maintain the practice of having a face-to-face meeting in Beijing. I have asked the GNSO Secretariat for a room for one hour (late in the day) on Sunday, April 7th in an effort to accommodate all that are arriving on that day. As soon as I have further information on this, I will forward it to you. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Thu Feb 21 21:07:09 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 21:07:09 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re-Submitting a Motion - Revision 20 February In-Reply-To: <512519CD0200005B000A2620@smtp.law.unh.edu> References: <512519CD0200005B000A2620@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973A40F7E@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> I thought we would be presenting the possibility of two out of the three higher level "conjunctive" criteria to our constituencies. I don't see all three together flying at IPC. [cid:144160621 at 21022013-33E4]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 Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 4:46 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Julie Hedlund Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re-Submitting a Motion - Revision 20 February Thanks for the quick turnaround, Julie! It looks fine to me - one question I had for everyone, in light of some of the discussion earlier today, is whether we ought to include a short explanatory note after setting out the options. Basically, I had in mind something like this: Notes: - 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 are conjunctive criteria, i.e. all three steps have to be completed. - 2.3 and 2.4 relate only to how the resubmitted motion is placed back on the Council's agenda, i.e. they take place prior to the Council's actually discussing (and voting on) the actual substance of the resubmitted motion, and allow for the possibility of there being a vote on whether to accept the resubmission itself in the first place. 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: Julie Hedlund To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Date: 2/20/2013 6:15 PM Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re-Submitting a Motion - Revision 20 February Dear SCI members, Based on our discussion today, please see below revised options. Please let me know if you have any changes. Once the SCI agrees to the options for consideration, the action is for members to circulate them to their Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups. These also are posted to the wiki. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Possible Options for Addressing the Re-Submission of a Motion: 1. Leave up to discretion of the Chair 2. Set one or more high-level criteria (in this order): 1) Provide a reasoning to justify the resubmission of a motion. Complete no later than the deadline for submitting a motion -- 8 days prior to the next GNSO Council meeting. 2) Publish the text of the re-submitted motion. Complete no later than the deadline for submitting a motion -- 8 days prior to the next GNSO Council meeting. 3) Require a seconder of the motion from each house as a prerequisite for placing the re-submission of the motion on the consent agenda. 4) Allow a councilor to ask for the re-submission of the motion to be taken off the consent agenda and to request a Council vote on whether to accept the re-submission. ________________________________ 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 wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Mon Feb 25 12:22:01 2013 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 13:22:01 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items from SCI Meeting 20 February In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48A92CE355664344ABA25155E2F53B84@WUKPC> I?ll volunteer for the Charter Revision Drafting Team, too. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 11:22 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items from SCI Meeting 20 February Dear All, Thank you for participating in today's SCI meeting. Please note the action items below. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/20+February+2013. Please let me know if you have any comments, questions, or changes. With best regards, Julie Action Items: SCI Meeting of 20 February 2013 a.. Termination and Suspension of a PDP ? Staff: Change "PDP WG" to "PDP Team"; produce clean version for final review b.. Re-Submitting a Motion -- Staff: change (1) to requirement to provide a reasoning for the re-submission 8 days prior to the meeting; SCI members: Take the revised text to the Constituencies/SGs for comments. c.. Charter Revision Drafting Team -- Volunteers: Avri Doria, Angie Graves, James Bladel, J.Scott; Staff: Set up an initial call. d.. Working Group Survey: Staff -- Resend the summary of the survey; move to the top of the agenda for the 06 March meeting. e.. Chair/Vice Chair Elections -- Fold this into changes to the entire charter; submit all revisions to the Council at the same time. f.. GNSO Council Liaison -- The Council will appoint one of the Council members who also is an SCI member. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Mon Feb 25 12:52:16 2013 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 13:52:16 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: CONCENSUS on Revised Suspension - Termination of a PDP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91EC6C579A0B4B9799979D3C6931CD26@WUKPC> Anyway ? my support as ISPCP primary rep. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:24 PM To: Ron Andruff ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: CONCENSUS on Revised Suspension - Termination of a PDP Ron, Just a reminder that before this can go to the Council it will need to go out for public comment because the revisions are substantial. It is helpful to know whether all agree that this version is the one we want to send out for comment, and then the next steps are as follows: 1. 30-day comment period in the public forum 2. Reply period (only if necessary) 3. Analysis and consideration of comments (if any) 4. Revisions resulting from comments (if necessary) 5. Final version to Council for approval Best regards, Julie From: Ron Andruff Organization: RNA Partners Date: Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:14 PM To: Julie Hedlund , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: RE: CONCENSUS on Revised Suspension - Termination of a PDP Dear Committee Members, Julie sent out the revised language on the Termination and Suspension with attachments this morning and the link to the doc (on our wiki) is noted below for easy reference. It appears that we have this matter ready to go back to the GNSO Council, but before sending it over we need the other constituencies (primary or secondary member) to confirm your agreement so that we have consensus. At this point it has IPC and BC support. Thank you all for your prompt attention to this matter. 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 Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 10:12 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised Suspension - Termination of a PDP Dear SCI members, Per our discussion on yesterday's call, attached for your review (in Word and PDF) is the revised text of the section on termination and suspension of a PDP with all previous edits accepted. I have included, as the only redline, the one change suggested by Anne in the meeting. The revised document is attached and also posted on the 06 March meeting page under the heading "For Review" at https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/06+March+2013. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Mon Feb 25 16:54:36 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 11:54:36 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: CONCENSUS on Revised Suspension - Termination of a PDP In-Reply-To: <91EC6C579A0B4B9799979D3C6931CD26@WUKPC> Message-ID: Thank you, Wolf. ISPs are duly noted as having approved this draft. Thank you also for volunteering to participate in the sub-group to review the Charter. You will be hearing from Julie shortly to set up a call(s) for that work. 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 WUKnoben Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 7:52 AM To: Julie Hedlund; Ron Andruff; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: CONCENSUS on Revised Suspension - Termination of a PDP Anyway - my support as ISPCP primary rep. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:24 PM To: Ron Andruff ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: CONCENSUS on Revised Suspension - Termination of a PDP Ron, Just a reminder that before this can go to the Council it will need to go out for public comment because the revisions are substantial. It is helpful to know whether all agree that this version is the one we want to send out for comment, and then the next steps are as follows: 1. 30-day comment period in the public forum 2. Reply period (only if necessary) 3. Analysis and consideration of comments (if any) 4. Revisions resulting from comments (if necessary) 5. Final version to Council for approval Best regards, Julie From: Ron Andruff Organization: RNA Partners Date: Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:14 PM To: Julie Hedlund , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: RE: CONCENSUS on Revised Suspension - Termination of a PDP Dear Committee Members, Julie sent out the revised language on the Termination and Suspension with attachments this morning and the link to the doc (on our wiki) is noted below for easy reference. It appears that we have this matter ready to go back to the GNSO Council, but before sending it over we need the other constituencies (primary or secondary member) to confirm your agreement so that we have consensus. At this point it has IPC and BC support. Thank you all for your prompt attention to this matter. 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 Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 10:12 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised Suspension - Termination of a PDP Dear SCI members, Per our discussion on yesterday's call, attached for your review (in Word and PDF) is the revised text of the section on termination and suspension of a PDP with all previous edits accepted. I have included, as the only redline, the one change suggested by Anne in the meeting. The revised document is attached and also posted on the 06 March meeting page under the heading "For Review" at https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/06+March+2013. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Mon Feb 25 17:50:28 2013 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 18:50:28 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Beijing face-to-face meeting In-Reply-To: <436CB5FC01F24B2B87D98E46808FC03E@ron> References: <436CB5FC01F24B2B87D98E46808FC03E@ron> Message-ID: <259CAC0B2F1C49EBB8E5C79921C8CCD2@WUKPC> Ron, it may be helpful to coordinate with Mason who is preparing for the entire GNSO schedule in Beijing. At the time being there is SCI update schduled on Saturday afternoon. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Ron Andruff Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:08 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Beijing face-to-face meeting Dear Committee Members, I apologize for not remembering to bring this up on our call yesterday, but I would like to maintain the practice of having a face-to-face meeting in Beijing. I have asked the GNSO Secretariat for a room for one hour (late in the day) on Sunday, April 7th in an effort to accommodate all that are arriving on that day. As soon as I have further information on this, I will forward it to you. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Mon Feb 25 17:57:02 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 12:57:02 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Beijing face-to-face meeting In-Reply-To: <259CAC0B2F1C49EBB8E5C79921C8CCD2@WUKPC> Message-ID: <3CCB7E5DA9F348D989A3925DC6D9F81A@ron> Thank you, Wolf-Ulrich. Mason, please let me know how your would like to proceed. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. _____ From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de] Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 12:50 PM To: Ron Andruff; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Mason Cole Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Beijing face-to-face meeting Ron, it may be helpful to coordinate with Mason who is preparing for the entire GNSO schedule in Beijing. At the time being there is SCI update schduled on Saturday afternoon. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Ron Andruff Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:08 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Beijing face-to-face meeting Dear Committee Members, I apologize for not remembering to bring this up on our call yesterday, but I would like to maintain the practice of having a face-to-face meeting in Beijing. I have asked the GNSO Secretariat for a room for one hour (late in the day) on Sunday, April 7th in an effort to accommodate all that are arriving on that day. As soon as I have further information on this, I will forward it to you. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Tue Feb 26 14:35:47 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 06:35:47 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposed Agenda 06 March SCI Meeting Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Please see below the proposed agenda for the 06 March SCI meeting. Please let us know if you have changes. This also is posted to the wiki at:https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/06+March+2013. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Proposed Agenda ? SCI Meeting ? 06 March 2013 1. Roll call (1 min) 2. Statements of Interest (2 min) 3. Approval of the agenda (2 min) 4. Termination and Suspension of a PDP (10 mins) 5. Action on Working Group survey (10 mins) 6. Re-submitting a motion (15 mins) 7. Charter Revision drafting team (15 mins) 8. AOB (5 mins) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Tue Feb 26 14:54:12 2013 From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 09:54:12 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposed Agenda 06 March SCI Meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <512C86440200005B000A2A7C@smtp.law.unh.edu> Thanks for this, Julie. All, I won't be able to join the call due to a schedule conflict that day. I'll catch up as best I can, before and after the call, via the usual channels. 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: Julie Hedlund To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Date: 2/26/2013 9:36 AM Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposed Agenda 06 March SCI Meeting Dear SCI members, Please see below the proposed agenda for the 06 March SCI meeting. Please let us know if you have changes. This also is posted to the wiki at:https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/06+March+2013. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Proposed Agenda ? SCI Meeting ? 06 March 2013 1. Roll call (1 min) 2. Statements of Interest (2 min) 3. Approval of the agenda (2 min) 4. Termination and Suspension of a PDP (10 mins) 5. Action on Working Group survey (10 mins) 6. Re-submitting a motion (15 mins) 7. Charter Revision drafting team (15 mins) 8. AOB (5 mins) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Tue Feb 26 14:58:33 2013 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 06:58:33 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposed Agenda 06 March SCI Meeting In-Reply-To: <512C86440200005B000A2A7C@smtp.law.unh.edu> References: <512C86440200005B000A2A7C@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: Dear Mary, Thank you for this, we will note your apology. Kindest regards Nathalie From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Sent: mardi 26 f?vrier 2013 15:54 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposed Agenda 06 March SCI Meeting Thanks for this, Julie. All, I won't be able to join the call due to a schedule conflict that day. I'll catch up as best I can, before and after the call, via the usual channels. 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: Julie Hedlund > To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Date: 2/26/2013 9:36 AM Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposed Agenda 06 March SCI Meeting Dear SCI members, Please see below the proposed agenda for the 06 March SCI meeting. Please let us know if you have changes. This also is posted to the wiki at:https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/06+March+2013. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Proposed Agenda ? SCI Meeting ? 06 March 2013 1. Roll call (1 min) 2. Statements of Interest (2 min) 3. Approval of the agenda (2 min) 4. Termination and Suspension of a PDP (10 mins) 5. Action on Working Group survey (10 mins) 6. Re-submitting a motion (15 mins) 7. Charter Revision drafting team (15 mins) 8. AOB (5 mins) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: