[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Revised language regarding suspension / termination of a PDP

Mon Feb 11 20:25:56 UTC 2013

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:  <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman at lrlaw.com>
Date:  Monday 11 February 2013 19:57
To:  "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>,
"randruff at rnapartners.com" <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 Members¹ attention to the last
sentence under the 3rd bullet: ³If 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.².  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: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman at lrlaw.com>
Date: Saturday 9 February 2013 01:25
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>,
"gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" <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 <http://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: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130211/b4390ca9/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3225 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130211/b4390ca9/image001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5056 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130211/b4390ca9/smime.p7s>