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

Mon Feb 11 20:59:59 UTC 2013

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<mailto:AAikman at LRLaw.com> * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman>
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.

________________________________
From: 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: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman at lrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com>>
Date: Monday 11 February 2013 19:57
To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>>, "randruff at rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com>" <randruff at rnapartners.com<mailto: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<mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com>]
Received: Monday, 11 Feb 2013, 11:28am
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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<mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com>>
Date: Saturday 9 February 2013 01:25
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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/f292ce96/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3225 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130211/f292ce96/image001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3225 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130211/f292ce96/image001-0001.gif>