From randruff at rnapartners.com Wed Jan 2 17:20:19 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 12:20:19 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task In-Reply-To: <00da01cde0fb$42ba9670$c82fc350$@ipracon.com> Message-ID: <10E9F2811B83428AB85E2CDFE89696D1@ron> Dear all, First, allow me to wish everyone a healthy, happy and abundant 2013! Jonathan/Jeff: Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the SCI. To get all of the SCI members up to speed on what is being discussed, could you kindly provide us with some background information vis-?-vis what the specific motion was, and what caused it to come back to the Council in (as I understand it) virtually the same wording? That will be helpful for our discussion. Jeff: By way of this email, I am asking staff (pursuant to the SCI Charter) to add your email address to the discussion list until this matter has been fully explored and a recommendation has been sent back to Council. 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 Jonathan Robinson Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 5:50 AM To: KnobenW at telekom.de; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff' Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task All, Jeff Neuman raised a point on the GNSO Council list that the question being posed to the SCI should be a simpler one focussed on the general principle not the specific item that caused us to question the principle. I am in agreement with this. Therefore my suggestion is that the SCI focus on the essential question i.e. under what circumstances is it acceptable / permissible for a motion to be submitted to the GNSO Council when such a motion is identical to one that has been previously voted down by the Council. Jeff put it well and I am support of his formulation of the question as follows. The question should simply be "should there be any restrictions on resubmitting motions that previously appeared before the Council? If so, what should those restrictions be and are there any exceptions? Thank-you. Jonathan From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW at telekom.de Sent: 20 December 2012 18:08 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task All, from today's council call the task attached was shifted to the SCI. Looking forward to meeting you later Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Glen at icann.org Wed Jan 2 18:12:58 2013 From: Glen at icann.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Glen_de_Saint_G=E9ry?=) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 10:12:58 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task In-Reply-To: <10E9F2811B83428AB85E2CDFE89696D1@ron> References: <00da01cde0fb$42ba9670$c82fc350$@ipracon.com> <10E9F2811B83428AB85E2CDFE89696D1@ron> Message-ID: Dear Jeff, You have been been added to the SCI mailing list gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org with public archives at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/ Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint G?ry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org De : owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] De la part de Ron Andruff Envoy? : mercredi 2 janvier 2013 18:20 ? : 'Jonathan Robinson'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc : 'Neuman, Jeff' Objet : RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Dear all, First, allow me to wish everyone a healthy, happy and abundant 2013! Jonathan/Jeff: Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the SCI. To get all of the SCI members up to speed on what is being discussed, could you kindly provide us with some background information vis-?-vis what the specific motion was, and what caused it to come back to the Council in (as I understand it) virtually the same wording? That will be helpful for our discussion. Jeff: By way of this email, I am asking staff (pursuant to the SCI Charter) to add your email address to the discussion list until this matter has been fully explored and a recommendation has been sent back to Council. 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 Jonathan Robinson Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 5:50 AM To: KnobenW at telekom.de; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff' Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task All, Jeff Neuman raised a point on the GNSO Council list that the question being posed to the SCI should be a simpler one focussed on the general principle not the specific item that caused us to question the principle. I am in agreement with this. Therefore my suggestion is that the SCI focus on the essential question i.e. under what circumstances is it acceptable / permissible for a motion to be submitted to the GNSO Council when such a motion is identical to one that has been previously voted down by the Council. Jeff put it well and I am support of his formulation of the question as follows. The question should simply be "should there be any restrictions on resubmitting motions that previously appeared before the Council? If so, what should those restrictions be and are there any exceptions? Thank-you. Jonathan From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW at telekom.de Sent: 20 December 2012 18:08 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task All, from today's council call the task attached was shifted to the SCI. Looking forward to meeting you later Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Wed Jan 2 18:21:44 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 13:21:44 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thank you, Glen. RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. _____ From: Glen de Saint G?ry [mailto:Glen at icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 1:13 PM To: Ron Andruff; 'Jonathan Robinson'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff' Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Dear Jeff, You have been been added to the SCI mailing list gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org with public archives at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/ Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint G?ry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org De : owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] De la part de Ron Andruff Envoy? : mercredi 2 janvier 2013 18:20 ? : 'Jonathan Robinson'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc : 'Neuman, Jeff' Objet : RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Dear all, First, allow me to wish everyone a healthy, happy and abundant 2013! Jonathan/Jeff: Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the SCI. To get all of the SCI members up to speed on what is being discussed, could you kindly provide us with some background information vis-?-vis what the specific motion was, and what caused it to come back to the Council in (as I understand it) virtually the same wording? That will be helpful for our discussion. Jeff: By way of this email, I am asking staff (pursuant to the SCI Charter) to add your email address to the discussion list until this matter has been fully explored and a recommendation has been sent back to Council. 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 Jonathan Robinson Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 5:50 AM To: KnobenW at telekom.de; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff' Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task All, Jeff Neuman raised a point on the GNSO Council list that the question being posed to the SCI should be a simpler one focussed on the general principle not the specific item that caused us to question the principle. I am in agreement with this. Therefore my suggestion is that the SCI focus on the essential question i.e. under what circumstances is it acceptable / permissible for a motion to be submitted to the GNSO Council when such a motion is identical to one that has been previously voted down by the Council. Jeff put it well and I am support of his formulation of the question as follows. The question should simply be "should there be any restrictions on resubmitting motions that previously appeared before the Council? If so, what should those restrictions be and are there any exceptions? Thank-you. Jonathan From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW at telekom.de Sent: 20 December 2012 18:08 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task All, from today's council call the task attached was shifted to the SCI. Looking forward to meeting you later Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julia.charvolen at icann.org Wed Jan 2 18:30:26 2013 From: julia.charvolen at icann.org (Julia Charvolen) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 10:30:26 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting doodle poll - new date and time Message-ID: Dear All, In order to set a new regular date and time for the bi-weekly SCI calls, please confirm your availability with this doodle poll not ONLY for next week but in general. http://www.doodle.com/qkkuft4fyzz259ri Thank you very much, Best regards and happy new year, Julia Charvolen For GNSO Secretariat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Wed Jan 2 18:50:19 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 13:50:19 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting doodle poll - new date and time In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear All, For those that were not present on our last call of 2012, the purpose of this doodle poll is to establish a date/time for our calls that will be fixed going forward. The goal is to enable all members to note the standing time for the second Thursday of every month in your respective calendars. In this way, we hope to have stronger attendance on each teleconference. Thank you in advance for your consideration. 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 Julia Charvolen Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 1:30 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting doodle poll - new date and time Dear All, In order to set a new regular date and time for the bi-weekly SCI calls, please confirm your availability with this doodle poll not ONLY for next week but in general. http://www.doodle.com/qkkuft4fyzz259ri Thank you very much, Best regards and happy new year, Julia Charvolen For GNSO Secretariat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Tue Jan 8 22:02:58 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 14:02:58 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Agenda for SCI Meeting 09 January Message-ID: Dear SCI members, On behalf of the SCI Chair and Vice Chair, Ron Andruff and Avri Doria, below is a proposed agenda for the SCI meeting tomorrow, Wednesday, 09 January 2013 at 2100 UTC> Please let us know if you have any questions, comments, or changes. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Agenda, SCI Meeting, Wednesday, 09 January 2013 at 2100 UTC 1. Roll call (1 min) 2. Statement of Interests (1 min) 3. Approval of the agenda (1 min) 4. Chair/Vice Chair elections and terms and SCI Charter changes (10 mins) 5. Action on Working Group survey (10 mins) 6. Termination and Suspension of a PDP (15 mins) 7. GNSO Council Liaison to the SCI (5 mins) 8. Whether the SCI should solicit work or take on work from the GNSO Council (5 mins) 9. Re-submitting a motion ? Background Discussion (10 mins) 10. AOB (2 mins) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Tue Jan 8 22:16:32 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 17:16:32 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task In-Reply-To: <042001cded86$b1d43f10$157cbd30$@ipracon.com> Message-ID: Dear Jonathan, Thank you very much for the background information to Council?s request that the SCI consider the matter of resubmitting motions. By way of this email, I am forwarding it on to the SCI members for their review. The Committee will begin to address this tomorrow on our call. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff President RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10001 + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 10 _____ From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 4:58 AM To: 'Ron Andruff' Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff' Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Dear Ron, Certainly. I believe that the issue can be summarised as follows: 1. The motion in question related to the provision of temporary protection for certain Olympic Committee and Red Cross related terms. 2. The Council voted on the motion and two councillors (from the IPC) initially abstained from voting. 3. Due to council procedures, an abstention has the effect of voting against a motion. 4. When reminded (by the chair, myself) of the consequence of abstaining, one councillor asked to change his vote to support the motion and one councillor retained his abstention. 5. The votes were then tallied and the matter was closed with the motion narrowly defeated. However, had the one remaining IPC councillor not abstained, the motion would have narrowly passed. 6. Generally, a councillor who abstains is asked to provide a reason (by way of explanation) for his/her abstention. 7. In this case, the reason for the remaining IPC Councillor abstention was a perceived conflict of interest relating to the content of the motion. 8. In fact, Council rules cover for this situation and the abstention was not strictly necessary. This position was formally clarified later in the meeting and the remaining abstaining councillor asked to change his vote to support he motion . But, by this time the matter had been formally closed and some councillors had left the meeting. The net effect of all of the above was that, had councillors properly understood the GNSO Operating Procedures, the outcome of the vote would almost certainly have been different and the motion would have passed. Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two remedies were possible. A. Re-open the motion in the same meeting OR B. Consider the same motion at a future meeting. In the event A above was not an option because it was procedurally questionable and all councillors were no longer present. Therefore the motion was resubmitted for consideration at the following meeting. This was to the concern of some who questioned the resubmission of a (failed) motion in exactly the same form. The question (as framed by Jeff) therefore arose i.e. ?Should there be any restrictions on resubmitting motions that previously appeared before the Council? If so, what should those restrictions be and are there any exceptions? I trust that this is helpful to you and your colleagues on the SCI. Jeff, please contribute as you see fit. Best wishes, Jonathan From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] Sent: 07 January 2013 21:41 To: 'Jonathan Robinson' Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff' Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Dear Jonathan, Regarding my email below, we will be discussing this matter on our Wednesday call this week. If you have a chance to provide the background requested so that I can circulate that info prior that would be great; otherwise you can send it on later so that we can bring it back on to our agenda for next call. Please advise. Thank you. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff President RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10001 + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 10 _____ From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 12:20 PM To: 'Jonathan Robinson'; 'gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org' Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff' Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Dear all, First, allow me to wish everyone a healthy, happy and abundant 2013! Jonathan/Jeff: Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the SCI. To get all of the SCI members up to speed on what is being discussed, could you kindly provide us with some background information vis-?-vis what the specific motion was, and what caused it to come back to the Council in (as I understand it) virtually the same wording? That will be helpful for our discussion. Jeff: By way of this email, I am asking staff (pursuant to the SCI Charter) to add your email address to the discussion list until this matter has been fully explored and a recommendation has been sent back to Council. 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 Jonathan Robinson Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 5:50 AM To: KnobenW at telekom.de; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff' Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task All, Jeff Neuman raised a point on the GNSO Council list that the question being posed to the SCI should be a simpler one focussed on the general principle not the specific item that caused us to question the principle. I am in agreement with this. Therefore my suggestion is that the SCI focus on the essential question i.e. under what circumstances is it acceptable / permissible for a motion to be submitted to the GNSO Council when such a motion is identical to one that has been previously voted down by the Council. Jeff put it well and I am support of his formulation of the question as follows. The question should simply be "should there be any restrictions on resubmitting motions that previously appeared before the Council? If so, what should those restrictions be and are there any exceptions? Thank-you. Jonathan From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW at telekom.de Sent: 20 December 2012 18:08 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task All, from today's council call the task attached was shifted to the SCI. Looking forward to meeting you later Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us Wed Jan 9 00:37:44 2013 From: Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us (Neuman, Jeff) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 19:37:44 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Message-ID: <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3E01036791C6@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on consensus. All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a second measurement of consensus is not an issue. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: > Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two remedies were possible. > I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and accountability. Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. avri From Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Wed Jan 9 00:43:57 2013 From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 19:43:57 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Agenda for SCI Meeting 09 January Message-ID: <50EC76E80200005B0009F405@smtp.law.unh.edu> Hi, as I'd mentioned in a comment on the Doodle poll, I won't be able to make this week's call. I look forward to catching up after the call and to contributing via the mailing list. I hope everyone had a happy and peaceful new year! 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 >>> Julie Hedlund 01/09/13 6:04 AM >>> Dear SCI members, On behalf of the SCI Chair and Vice Chair, Ron Andruff and Avri Doria, below is a proposed agenda for the SCI meeting tomorrow, Wednesday, 09 January 2013 at 2100 UTC> Please let us know if you have any questions, comments, or changes. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Agenda, SCI Meeting, Wednesday, 09 January 2013 at 2100 UTC 1. Roll call (1 min) 2. Statement of Interests (1 min) 3. Approval of the agenda (1 min) 4. Chair/Vice Chair elections and terms and SCI Charter changes (10 mins) 5. Action on Working Group survey (10 mins) 6. Termination and Suspension of a PDP (15 mins) 7. GNSO Council Liaison to the SCI (5 mins) 8. Whether the SCI should solicit work or take on work from the GNSO Council (5 mins) 9. Re-submitting a motion ? Background Discussion (10 mins) 10. AOB (2 mins) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us Wed Jan 9 02:24:12 2013 From: Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us (Neuman, Jeff) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 21:24:12 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Message-ID: <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3E01036791C8@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com> Avri, Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did not happen. I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Hi, Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that is not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion has passed or not. To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the reality of the situation. avri On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > > I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on consensus. > > All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a second measurement of consensus is not an issue. > > Best regards, > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > > Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > > On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: > >> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two remedies were possible. >> > > > I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and accountability. > > Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. > > avri > > > From AAikman at lrlaw.com Wed Jan 9 04:07:05 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 04:07:05 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Agenda for SCI Meeting 09 January In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD960294F52@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Ron, Avri, et al, Attached please see the draft J. Scott and I put together regarding the requirement for a report on termation or suspension. This is for discussion under Item 6 of the agenda below. Thank you, Anne [cid:436350404 at 09012013-2B89]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: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 3:03 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Agenda for SCI Meeting 09 January Dear SCI members, On behalf of the SCI Chair and Vice Chair, Ron Andruff and Avri Doria, below is a proposed agenda for the SCI meeting tomorrow, Wednesday, 09 January 2013 at 2100 UTC> Please let us know if you have any questions, comments, or changes. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Agenda, SCI Meeting, Wednesday, 09 January 2013 at 2100 UTC 1. Roll call (1 min) 2. Statement of Interests (1 min) 3. Approval of the agenda (1 min) 4. Chair/Vice Chair elections and terms and SCI Charter changes (10 mins) 5. Action on Working Group survey (10 mins) 6. Termination and Suspension of a PDP (15 mins) 7. GNSO Council Liaison to the SCI (5 mins) 8. Whether the SCI should solicit work or take on work from the GNSO Council (5 mins) 9. Re-submitting a motion ? Background Discussion (10 mins) 10. AOB (2 mins) ________________________________ 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: Report on Temination or Suspension of a PDP.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 11882 bytes Desc: Report on Temination or Suspension of a PDP.docx URL: From avri at acm.org Wed Jan 9 05:15:51 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 00:15:51 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task In-Reply-To: <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3E01036791C8@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com> References: <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3E01036791C8@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com> Message-ID: Hi, I guess I do not support that. I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should have past. And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an NCUC based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go her way. avri On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > > Avri, > > Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did not happen. > > I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. > > Best regards, > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > > Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time > To: Neuman, Jeff > Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > Hi, > > Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that is not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion has passed or not. > > To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the reality of the situation. > > avri > > > On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > >> >> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on consensus. >> >> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a second measurement of consensus is not an issue. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Jeffrey J. Neuman >> >> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time >> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >> >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: >> >>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two remedies were possible. >>> >> >> >> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and accountability. >> >> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. >> >> avri >> >> >> > > > From AAikman at lrlaw.com Wed Jan 9 05:27:47 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 05:27:47 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task In-Reply-To: References: <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3E01036791C8@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD960294FEF@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Hi all, What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" type inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going to discuss tomorrow. I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can provide prior to our call. 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 the original message. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Jonathan Robinson Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Hi, I guess I do not support that. I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should have past. And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an NCUC based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go her way. avri On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > > Avri, > > Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did not happen. > > I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. > > Best regards, > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > > Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time > To: Neuman, Jeff > Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > Hi, > > Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that is not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion has passed or not. > > To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the reality of the situation. > > avri > > > On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > >> >> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on consensus. >> >> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a second measurement of consensus is not an issue. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Jeffrey J. Neuman >> >> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time >> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >> >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: >> >>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two remedies were possible. >>> >> >> >> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and accountability. >> >> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. >> >> avri >> >> >> > > > ---------------------- 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 From jscottevans at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 05:30:12 2013 From: jscottevans at yahoo.com (J. Scott Evans) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 21:30:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Message-ID: <1357709412.49123.YahooMailMobile@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> I tend to agree, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Wed Jan 9 05:54:07 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 00:54:07 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task In-Reply-To: <1357709412.49123.YahooMailMobile@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1357709412.49123.YahooMailMobile@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <251AA552-ACAE-477E-8236-4E011E308F60@acm.org> Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can be reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on reconsideration in the ByLaws. One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that one of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case it was the Chair who had been on the losing side. We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done. avri On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote: > I tend to agree, > > From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; > To: 'Avri Doria' ; Jeff Neuman ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; > Cc: Jonathan Robinson ; > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM > > > Hi all, > What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" type inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going to discuss tomorrow. the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated. > > I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can provide prior to our call. It is all in the g-counci Procedures. And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions already made. > > 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 the original message. > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM > To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Cc: Jonathan Robinson > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > > Hi, > > I guess I do not support that. > > I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should have past. > > And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. > > I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. > > A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an NCUC based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go her way. > > avri > > On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > > > > > Avri, > > > > Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did not happen. > > > > I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > > > > Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time > > To: Neuman, Jeff > > Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson > > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > > > Hi, > > > > Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that is not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion has passed or not. > > > > To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the reality of the situation. > > > > avri > > > > > > On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > > > >> > >> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on consensus. > >> > >> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a second measurement of consensus is not an issue. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> Jeffrey J. Neuman > >> > >> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] > >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time > >> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff > >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >> > >> > >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: > >> > >>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two remedies were possible. > >>> > >> > >> > >> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and accountability. > >> > >> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. > >> > >> avri > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------- > 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 > From avri at acm.org Wed Jan 9 06:00:17 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 01:00:17 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task In-Reply-To: <251AA552-ACAE-477E-8236-4E011E308F60@acm.org> References: <1357709412.49123.YahooMailMobile@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <251AA552-ACAE-477E-8236-4E011E308F60@acm.org> Message-ID: Another thought experiment. There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG Policy Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, some voters got confused and voted against. Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote? Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to just reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and perhaps even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote? A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency beleive that its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be able to have a vote rescheduled at the next meeting? avri On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote: > > Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can be reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on reconsideration in the ByLaws. > > One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that one of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case it was the Chair who had been on the losing side. > > We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done. > > avri > > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote: > >> I tend to agree, >> >> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; >> To: 'Avri Doria' ; Jeff Neuman ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson ; >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM >> >> >> Hi all, >> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" type inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going to discuss tomorrow. > > the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated. > >> >> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can provide prior to our call. > > It is all in the g-counci Procedures. > And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions already made. > > >> >> 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 the original message. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM >> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I guess I do not support that. >> >> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should have past. >> >> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. >> >> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. >> >> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an NCUC based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go her way. >> >> avri >> >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >> >>> >>> Avri, >>> >>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did not happen. >>> >>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>> >>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time >>> To: Neuman, Jeff >>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that is not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion has passed or not. >>> >>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the reality of the situation. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on consensus. >>>> >>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a second measurement of consensus is not an issue. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>>> >>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: >>>> >>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two remedies were possible. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and accountability. >>>> >>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------- >> 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 >> > From julie.hedlund at icann.org Wed Jan 9 14:53:08 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 06:53:08 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER: Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting teleconference - Wednesday 9 January 2013 at 21:00 UTC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear All, This is a reminder that the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting teleconference is scheduled TODAY Wednesday 9 January 2013 at 21:00UTC for 1 hour. 16:00 EST, 13:00 PST, 21:00 London, 22:00 CET For other places see: http://tinyurl.com/belfyf6 Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/standcommdraft/ Dial-in details are below. If you require a dial-out, please email us (gnso-secs at icann.org) your preferred contact number. Thank you Kind regards, Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ____________________________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: SCI For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. ____________________________________________________________________________ Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA* 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA 000-800-852-1268 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 *Access to your conference call will be either of the numbers listed, dependent on the participants' local telecom provider. Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. ---------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Wed Jan 9 15:51:46 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 07:51:46 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Motions in GNSO Council Operating Procedures Message-ID: All, As Anne requested, below are the sections of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures relating to the notice of motions, as well as those relating to voting thresholds, motions and votes. I will prepare these as a document to view in the Adobe Connect room for today's meeting later today. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Excerpts from GNSO Council Operating Procedures, v2.5, 13 September 2012 Section 3.3 Notice of Meetings Reports and motions should be submitted to the GNSO Council for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 8 business days before the GNSO Council meeting. 4.2 Voting Thresholds Unless otherwise specified in these procedures or in the ICANN Bylaws, to pass a motion or other action, greater than 50% of the eligible voters in each House must cast affirmative votes. For all votes taken, the number of eligible voters in each House shall be fixed to the number of seats allocated in theBylaws (a.k.a. the denominator) and is not affected by the number of members present or absent at the meeting in which the motion or other action is initiated. For rules and procedures concerning abstentions and their impact on voting thresholds, refer to Section 4.5-Abstentions). 4.3 Motions and Votes 4.3.1 Eligibility: All actions of, or votes by, the GNSO Council are taken or cast only by the members of the GNSO Council. Except as otherwise provided in these procedures, persons who are not Council members may not vote. Acts by the GNSO Council members present at any meeting at which there is a quorum shall be acts of the GNSO Council unless otherwise provided herein. 4.3.2 For each motion or action of the GNSO Council requiring a vote, Councilors may enter either a ?No?, ?Yes, or ?Abstain.? For a vote of ?Abstain,? a reason or explanation is required. For votes of ?No? or ?Yes?, at the discretion of the Councilor, an explanation or reason may be provided which will be recorded in the meeting minutes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Wed Jan 9 16:57:36 2013 From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 11:57:36 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Message-ID: <50ED5B1B0200005B0009F523@smtp.law.unh.edu> I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in this specific instance: - the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on. - just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors were not aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they should be as it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a re-introduction of something that was properly introduced and voted on. - In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had given instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did not, the fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO rules, and if a constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the time to discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a motion (again, one properly introduced, seconded and voted on). - In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and referred the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion (without necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI before re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands are somewhat tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through - the mind boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and vote was improper or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive context within which ICANN is operating. 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 >>> Avri Doria 01/09/13 2:01 PM >>> Another thought experiment. There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG Policy Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, some voters got confused and voted against. Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote? Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to just reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and perhaps even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote? A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency beleive that its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be able to have a vote rescheduled at the next meeting? avri On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote: > > Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can be reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on reconsideration in the ByLaws. > > One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that one of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case it was the Chair who had been on the losing side. > > We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done. > > avri > > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote: > >> I tend to agree, >> >> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; >> To: 'Avri Doria' ; Jeff Neuman ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson ; >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM >> >> >> Hi all, >> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" type inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going to discuss tomorrow. > > the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated. > >> >> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can provide prior to our call. > > It is all in the g-counci Procedures. > And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions already made. > > >> >> 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 the original message. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM >> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I guess I do not support that. >> >> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should have past. >> >> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. >> >> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. >> >> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an NCUC based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go her way. >> >> avri >> >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >> >>> >>> Avri, >>> >>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did not happen. >>> >>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>> >>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time >>> To: Neuman, Jeff >>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that is not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion has passed or not. >>> >>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the reality of the situation. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on consensus. >>>> >>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a second measurement of consensus is not an issue. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>>> >>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: >>>> >>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two remedies were possible. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and accountability. >>>> >>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------- >> 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 Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us Wed Jan 9 17:04:00 2013 From: Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us (Neuman, Jeff) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 12:04:00 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task In-Reply-To: <50ED5B1B0200005B0009F523@smtp.law.unh.edu> References: <50ED5B1B0200005B0009F523@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3E0103EC380A@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com> Just to clarify, the issue before the SCI is NOT whether the vote was proper or improper at the last Council meeting, but rather on the general notion of whether we should be allowing this in the future or restricting it. Clearly there is nothing now in the bylaws, operating procedures, etc. that says this practice is NOT allowed. So, regardless of what people's personal views on this are, the GNSO did not act improperly according to its rules. That said, should this be allowed in the future, should there be restrictions, etc. That is the issue we need to consider as a group. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [mailto:Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 11:58 AM To: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Neuman, Jeff Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in this specific instance: - the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on. - just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors were not aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they should be as it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a re-introduction of something that was properly introduced and voted on. - In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had given instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did not, the fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO rules, and if a constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the time to discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a motion (again, one properly introduced, seconded and voted on). - In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and referred the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion (without necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI before re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands are somewhat tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through - the mind boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and vote was improper or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive context within which ICANN is operating. 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 >>> Avri Doria > 01/09/13 2:01 PM >>> Another thought experiment. There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG Policy Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, some voters got confused and voted against. Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote? Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to just reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and perhaps even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote? A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency beleive that its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be able to have a vote rescheduled at the next meeting? avri On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote: > > Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can be reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on reconsideration in the ByLaws. > > One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that one of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case it was the Chair who had been on the losing side. > > We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done. > > avri > > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote: > >> I tend to agree, >> >> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne >; >> To: 'Avri Doria' >; Jeff Neuman >; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >; >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson >; >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM >> >> >> Hi all, >> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" type inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going to discuss tomorrow. > > the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated. > >> >> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can provide prior to our call. > > It is all in the g-counci Procedures. > And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions already made. > > >> >> 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 the original message. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM >> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I guess I do not support that. >> >> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should have past. >> >> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. >> >> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. >> >> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an NCUC based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go her way. >> >> avri >> >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >> >>> >>> Avri, >>> >>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did not happen. >>> >>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>> >>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time >>> To: Neuman, Jeff >>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that is not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion has passed or not. >>> >>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the reality of the situation. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on consensus. >>>> >>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a second measurement of consensus is not an issue. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>>> >>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: >>>> >>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two remedies were possible. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and accountability. >>>> >>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------- >> 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 Wed Jan 9 17:05:56 2013 From: jscottevans at yahoo.com (jscottevans at yahoo.com) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 09:05:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Message-ID: <1357751156.51922.iosMobile@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> I agree.

Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com Wed Jan 9 17:10:34 2013 From: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com (Jonathan Robinson) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 17:10:34 -0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task In-Reply-To: <50ED5B1B0200005B0009F523@smtp.law.unh.edu> References: <50ED5B1B0200005B0009F523@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <011101cdee8c$3f389f80$bda9de80$@ipracon.com> All, My understanding of the role of the SCI is to determine how improvements may be made for the future. When the motion was re-submitted to the December meeting, I do not believe that there was any procedure to guide the Council on the re-introduction of a motion that had recently been voted on. This specific issue has highlighted that we may need something to guide us on this in future. I do not believe that the SCI's hands are tied at all. We have one useful example which raised concerns and now need to look at as general solution as possible for the future in order to cover both the example that raised the concern and other cases which may occur in future. Thanks, Jonathan 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: 09 January 2013 16:58 To: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in this specific instance: - the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on. - just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors were not aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they should be as it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a re-introduction of something that was properly introduced and voted on. - In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had given instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did not, the fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO rules, and if a constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the time to discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a motion (again, one properly introduced, seconded and voted on). - In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and referred the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion (without necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI before re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands are somewhat tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through - the mind boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and vote was improper or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive context within which ICANN is operating. 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 >>> Avri Doria 01/09/13 2:01 PM >>> Another thought experiment. There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG Policy Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, some voters got confused and voted against. Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote? Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to just reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and perhaps even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote? A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency beleive that its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be able to have a vote rescheduled at the next meeting? avri On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote: > > Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can be reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on reconsideration in the ByLaws. > > One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that one of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case it was the Chair who had been on the losing side. > > We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done. > > avri > > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote: > >> I tend to agree, >> >> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; >> To: 'Avri Doria' ; Jeff Neuman ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson ; >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM >> >> >> Hi all, >> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" type inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going to discuss tomorrow. > > the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated. > >> >> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can provide prior to our call. > > It is all in the g-counci Procedures. > And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions already made. > > >> >> 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 the original message. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM >> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I guess I do not support that. >> >> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should have past. >> >> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. >> >> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. >> >> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an NCUC based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go her way. >> >> avri >> >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >> >>> >>> Avri, >>> >>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did not happen. >>> >>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>> >>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time >>> To: Neuman, Jeff >>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that is not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion has passed or not. >>> >>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the reality of the situation. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on consensus. >>>> >>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a second measurement of consensus is not an issue. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>>> >>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: >>>> >>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two remedies were possible. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and accountability. >>>> >>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------- >> 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 Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Wed Jan 9 17:16:34 2013 From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 12:16:34 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Message-ID: <50ED5F8E0200005B0009F54D@smtp.law.unh.edu> Thanks, Jonathan and Jeff. As I won't be on the SCI call this week, my view, FWIW, is that a motion that is properly introduced, seconded and voted on should NOT be re-introduced (whether in its original form or tweaked) in the absence of clear evidence indicating fraud, duress or other similar circumstance surrounding the original introduction/seconding/vote in relation to the motion. In this regard, Councilors' ignorance of the rules (e.g. effect of an abstention), and lack of instruction/direction from a Councilor's particular constituency/SG, should NOT count as the type of circumstance that ought to permit a reintroduction or re-vote on what in substance is the same motion. 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 >>> "Jonathan Robinson" 01/10/13 1:12 AM >>> All, My understanding of the role of the SCI is to determine how improvements may be made for the future. When the motion was re-submitted to the December meeting, I do not believe that there was any procedure to guide the Council on the re-introduction of a motion that had recently been voted on. This specific issue has highlighted that we may need something to guide us on this in future. I do not believe that the SCI*s hands are tied at all. We have one useful example which raised concerns and now need to look at as general solution as possible for the future in order to cover both the example that raised the concern and other cases which may occur in future. Thanks, Jonathan 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: 09 January 2013 16:58 To: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in this specific instance: - the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on. - just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors were not aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they should be as it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a re-introduction of something that was properly introduced and voted on. - In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had given instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did not, the fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO rules, and if a constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the time to discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a motion (again, one properly introduced, seconded and voted on). - In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and referred the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion (without necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI before re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands are somewhat tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through - the mind boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and vote was improper or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive context within which ICANN is operating. 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 >>> Avri Doria 01/09/13 2:01 PM >>> Another thought experiment. There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG Policy Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, some voters got confused and voted against. Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote? Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to just reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and perhaps even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote? A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency beleive that its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be able to have a vote rescheduled at the next meeting? avri On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote: > > Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can be reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on reconsideration in the ByLaws. > > One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that one of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case it was the Chair who had been on the losing side. > > We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done. > > avri > > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote: > >> I tend to agree, >> >> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; >> To: 'Avri Doria' ; Jeff Neuman ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson ; >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM >> >> >> Hi all, >> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" type inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going to discuss tomorrow. > > the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated. > >> >> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can provide prior to our call. > > It is all in the g-counci Procedures. > And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions already made. > > >> >> 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 the original message. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM >> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I guess I do not support that. >> >> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should have past. >> >> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. >> >> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. >> >> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an NCUC based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go her way. >> >> avri >> >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >> >>> >>> Avri, >>> >>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did not happen. >>> >>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>> >>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time >>> To: Neuman, Jeff >>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that is not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion has passed or not. >>> >>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the reality of the situation. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on consensus. >>>> >>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a second measurement of consensus is not an issue. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>>> >>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: >>>> >>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two remedies were possible. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and accountability. >>>> >>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------- >> 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 avri at acm.org Wed Jan 9 17:33:10 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 12:33:10 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task In-Reply-To: <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3E0103EC380A@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com> References: <50ED5B1B0200005B0009F523@smtp.law.unh.edu> <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3E0103EC380A@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com> Message-ID: <1C493503-23E0-4C91-B01A-536A66ADE9BD@acm.org> Hi, I agree that we are not reviewing the vote itself. Though it would be interesting to see what happened if someone did introduce a motion to rescind that vote (re-reading Robert's is fascinating!), that is not an SCI decision to make. What is pertinent is that event, and projections on that event, as a case study for the issue before us.. avri On 9 Jan 2013, at 12:04, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > Just to clarify, the issue before the SCI is NOT whether the vote was proper or improper at the last Council meeting, but rather on the general notion of whether we should be allowing this in the future or restricting it. Clearly there is nothing now in the bylaws, operating procedures, etc. that says this practice is NOT allowed. So, regardless of what people?s personal views on this are, the GNSO did not act improperly according to its rules. That said, should this be allowed in the future, should there be restrictions, etc. That is the issue we need to consider as a group. > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs > > > From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [mailto:Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 11:58 AM > To: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Cc: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Neuman, Jeff > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in this specific instance: > > - the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on. > > - just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors were not aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they should be as it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a re-introduction of something that was properly introduced and voted on. > > - In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had given instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did not, the fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO rules, and if a constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the time to discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a motion (again, one properly introduced, seconded and voted on). > > - In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and referred the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion (without necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI before re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands are somewhat tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through - the mind boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and vote was improper or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive context within which ICANN is operating. > > 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 > > >>> Avri Doria 01/09/13 2:01 PM >>> > > Another thought experiment. > > There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG Policy Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, some voters got confused and voted against. > > Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote? > > Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to just reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and perhaps even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote? > > A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency beleive that its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be able to have a vote rescheduled at the next meeting? > > avri > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > > Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can be reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on reconsideration in the ByLaws. > > > > One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that one of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case it was the Chair who had been on the losing side. > > > > We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done. > > > > avri > > > > > > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote: > > > >> I tend to agree, > >> > >> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; > >> To: 'Avri Doria' ; Jeff Neuman ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; > >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson ; > >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM > >> > >> > >> Hi all, > >> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" type inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going to discuss tomorrow. > > > > the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated. > > > >> > >> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can provide prior to our call. > > > > It is all in the g-counci Procedures. > > And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions already made. > > > > > >> > >> 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 the original message. > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM > >> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson > >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >> > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I guess I do not support that. > >> > >> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should have past. > >> > >> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. > >> > >> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. > >> > >> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an NCUC based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go her way. > >> > >> avri > >> > >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Avri, > >>> > >>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did not happen. > >>> > >>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> > >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman > >>> > >>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] > >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time > >>> To: Neuman, Jeff > >>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson > >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that is not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion has passed or not. > >>> > >>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the reality of the situation. > >>> > >>> avri > >>> > >>> > >>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on consensus. > >>>> > >>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a second measurement of consensus is not an issue. > >>>> > >>>> Best regards, > >>>> > >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman > >>>> > >>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time > >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff > >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two remedies were possible. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and accountability. > >>>> > >>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. > >>>> > >>>> avri > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ---------------------- > >> 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 > >> > > > From julie.hedlund at icann.org Wed Jan 9 17:55:20 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 09:55:20 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER: ACTION REQUESTED: Draft Survey for GNSO Working Groups In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Below is a link to a Draft Survey for GNSO Working Groups. As we discussed on our call on 20 December, the SCI members who have not already done so are requested to read the Working Group Guidelines (see link also below), take the survey, and provide comments on how the survey can be improved. We've had 6 responses to the survey thus far. We have 9 Primary Members of the SCI and 8 Alternate Members so we need more responses before this can be approved. Link to the Working Group Guidelines: http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf Link to the Guidelines Summary: http://gnso.icann.org/council/summary-gnso-wg-guidelines-06apr11-en.pdf Link to Draft Survey for GNSO Working Groups: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FFTCJPT Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us Wed Jan 9 21:00:15 2013 From: Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us (Neuman, Jeff) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 16:00:15 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task In-Reply-To: <50ED5F8E0200005B0009F54D@smtp.law.unh.edu> References: <50ED5F8E0200005B0009F54D@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3E0103EC3854@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com> Thanks Mary. I understand the rules you have laid out, but not sure I understand the rationale? What are you trying to prevent, guard against, protect, etc.? The reason I take the opposite view is that we are a consensus building organization. If consensus can be achieved on a policy matter, regardless of whether it is when a measure of consensus is taken the first time or the 2nd time, I see no reason to recognize consensus when consensus exists. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [mailto:Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 12:17 PM To: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com Cc: Neuman, Jeff Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Thanks, Jonathan and Jeff. As I won't be on the SCI call this week, my view, FWIW, is that a motion that is properly introduced, seconded and voted on should NOT be re-introduced (whether in its original form or tweaked) in the absence of clear evidence indicating fraud, duress or other similar circumstance surrounding the original introduction/seconding/vote in relation to the motion. In this regard, Councilors' ignorance of the rules (e.g. effect of an abstention), and lack of instruction/direction from a Councilor's particular constituency/SG, should NOT count as the type of circumstance that ought to permit a reintroduction or re-vote on what in substance is the same motion. 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 >>> "Jonathan Robinson" 01/10/13 1:12 AM >>> All, My understanding of the role of the SCI is to determine how improvements may be made for the future. When the motion was re-submitted to the December meeting, I do not believe that there was any procedure to guide the Council on the re-introduction of a motion that had recently been voted on. This specific issue has highlighted that we may need something to guide us on this in future. I do not believe that the SCI?s hands are tied at all. We have one useful example which raised concerns and now need to look at as general solution as possible for the future in order to cover both the example that raised the concern and other cases which may occur in future. Thanks, Jonathan 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: 09 January 2013 16:58 To: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in this specific instance: - the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on. - just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors were not aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they should be as it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a re-introduction of something that was properly introduced and voted on. - In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had given instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did not, the fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO rules, and if a constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the time to discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a motion (again, one properly introduced, seconded and voted on). - In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and referred the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion (without necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI before re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands are somewhat tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through - the mind boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and vote was improper or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive context within which ICANN is operating. 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 >>> Avri Doria > 01/09/13 2:01 PM >>> Another thought experiment. There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG Policy Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, some voters got confused and voted against. Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote? Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to just reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and perhaps even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote? A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency beleive that its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be able to have a vote rescheduled at the next meeting? avri On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote: > > Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can be reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on reconsideration in the ByLaws. > > One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that one of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case it was the Chair who had been on the losing side. > > We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done. > > avri > > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote: > >> I tend to agree, >> >> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne >; >> To: 'Avri Doria' >; Jeff Neuman >; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >; >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson >; >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM >> >> >> Hi all, >> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" type inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going to discuss tomorrow. > > the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated. > >> >> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can provide prior to our call. > > It is all in the g-counci Procedures. > And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions already made. > > >> >> 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 the original message. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM >> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I guess I do not support that. >> >> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should have past. >> >> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. >> >> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. >> >> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an NCUC based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go her way. >> >> avri >> >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >> >>> >>> Avri, >>> >>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did not happen. >>> >>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>> >>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time >>> To: Neuman, Jeff >>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that is not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion has passed or not. >>> >>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the reality of the situation. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on consensus. >>>> >>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a second measurement of consensus is not an issue. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>>> >>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: >>>> >>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two remedies were possible. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and accountability. >>>> >>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------- >> 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 Wed Jan 9 21:56:12 2013 From: jscottevans at yahoo.com (J. Scott Evans) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 13:56:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Agenda for SCI Meeting 09 January In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD960294F52@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD960294F52@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <1357768572.52950.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Anne, et. al. I have attached a recommend revision to the last paragraph. J. Scott ? j. scott evans - ?head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com ________________________________ From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" To: 'Julie Hedlund' ; "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 8:07 PM Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Agenda for SCI Meeting 09 January Ron, Avri, et al, Attached please see the draft J. Scott and I put together regarding the requirement for a report on termation or suspension.? This is for discussion under Item 6 of the agenda below. ? 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 Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 3:03 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Agenda for SCI Meeting 09 January Dear SCI members, On behalf of the SCI Chair and Vice Chair, Ron Andruff and Avri Doria, below is a proposed agenda for the SCI meeting tomorrow, Wednesday, 09 January 2013 at 2100 UTC> Please let us know if you have any questions, comments, or changes. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Agenda, SCI Meeting, Wednesday, 09 January 2013 at 2100 UTC 1. Roll call (1 min) 2. Statement of Interests (1 min) 3. Approval of the agenda (1 min) 4. Chair/Vice Chair elections and terms and SCI Charter changes (10 mins) 5. Action on Working Group survey (10 mins) 6.??Termination and Suspension of a PDP (15 mins) 7. GNSO Council Liaison to the SCI (5 mins) 8.??Whether the SCI should solicit work or take on work from the GNSO Council (5 mins) 9.??Re-submitting a motion ? Background Discussion (10 mins) 10. AOB (2 mins) ? ________________________________ 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-TerminationPDP4.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 19517 bytes Desc: not available URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Wed Jan 9 22:20:19 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 14:20:19 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Actions from SCI Meeting 09 January 2013 Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Below are the actions I captured from today's meeting. Please let me know of any comments or changes you may have. Our next meeting is scheduled in two weeks on Wednesday, 16 January 2013 at 21:00 UTC for 1 hour. A notice will be sent out with the call details. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions from SCI Meeting 09 January 2013 1. SCI Member List -- Staff will update the list of members to reflect that Anne Aikman-Scalese will be the Primary Member and J.Scott will be the Alternate Member for the Intellectual Property Constituency. 2. Chair/Vice Chair Elections -- Staff will draft language to add Chair and Vice-Chair elections and terms to the Charter. The term for the Chair will be 1 year with a 1 year option to extend. Vice-Chairs can run for the Chair position and thus are not term limited to 1+1. 3. Working Group Survey ? SCI members are encouraged to read the Working Group Guidelines and take the survey if they have not already done so. 4. Termination/Suspension of a PDP -- J. Scott sent revised language to the list. Avri, Thomas, J. Scott, and Anne will work with the revised language and send revisions to the list. 5. Liaison from the GNSO Council -- Keep on agenda for next meeting. 6. Re-Submtting a Motion -- Continue discussion on the list and keep on the agenda for the next meeting. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Wed Jan 9 22:31:34 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 14:31:34 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] CORRECTION re: Actions from SCI Meeting 09 January 2013 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Below are the actions I captured from today's meeting. Please let me know of any comments or changes you may have. Please note the CORRECTION for the date of our next meeting. It is scheduled in two weeks on Wednesday, 23 January 2013 at 21:00 UTC for 1 hour. A notice will be sent out with the call details. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions from SCI Meeting 09 January 2013 1. SCI Member List -- Staff will update the list of members to reflect that Anne Aikman-Scalese will be the Primary Member and J.Scott will be the Alternate Member for the Intellectual Property Constituency. 2. Chair/Vice Chair Elections -- Staff will draft language to add Chair and Vice-Chair elections and terms to the Charter. The term for the Chair will be 1 year with a 1 year option to extend. Vice-Chairs can run for the Chair position and thus are not term limited to 1+1. 3. Working Group Survey ? SCI members are encouraged to read the Working Group Guidelines and take the survey if they have not already done so. 4. Termination/Suspension of a PDP -- J. Scott sent revised language to the list. Avri, Thomas, J. Scott, and Anne will work with the revised language and send revisions to the list. 5. Liaison from the GNSO Council -- Keep on agenda for next meeting. 6. Re-Submtting a Motion -- Continue discussion on the list and keep on the agenda for the next meeting. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jscottevans at yahoo.com Wed Jan 9 22:06:47 2013 From: jscottevans at yahoo.com (J. Scott Evans) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 14:06:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task In-Reply-To: <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3E0103EC3854@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com> References: <50ED5F8E0200005B0009F54D@smtp.law.unh.edu> <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3E0103EC3854@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com> Message-ID: <1357769207.45238.YahooMailNeo@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> I think our problem is the meshing of to systems that are not necessarily complimentary. ?For this reason, I recommend that we consider getting away from the council passing motions and re-focus the efforts on calling for consensus. ? J. Scott ? j. scott evans - ?head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com ________________________________ From: "Neuman, Jeff" To: "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" ; "avri at acm.org" ; "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" ; "jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com" Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 1:00 PM Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Thanks Mary.? I understand the rules you have laid out, but not sure I understand the rationale?? ?What are you trying to prevent, guard against, protect, etc.?? The reason I take the opposite view is that we are a consensus building organization.? If consensus can be achieved on a policy matter, regardless of whether it is when a measure of consensus is taken the first time or the 2nd time, I see no reason to recognize consensus when consensus exists. ? Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs ? From:Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [mailto:Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 12:17 PM To: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com Cc: Neuman, Jeff Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task ? Thanks, Jonathan and Jeff. As I won't be on the SCI call this week, my view, FWIW, is that a motion that is properly introduced, seconded and voted on should NOT be re-introduced (whether in its original form or tweaked) in the absence of clear evidence indicating fraud, duress or other similar circumstance surrounding the original introduction/seconding/vote in relation to the motion. In this regard, Councilors' ignorance of the rules (e.g. effect of an abstention), and lack of instruction/direction from a Councilor's particular constituency/SG, should NOT count as the type of circumstance that ought to permit a reintroduction or re-vote on what in substance is the same motion. 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 >>> "Jonathan Robinson" 01/10/13 1:12 AM >>> All, ? My understanding of the role of the SCI is to determine how improvements may be made for the future. ? When the motion was re-submitted to the December meeting, I do not believe that there was any procedure to guide the Council on the re-introduction of a motion that had recently been voted on. ? This specific issue has highlighted that we may need something to guide us on this in future.? I do not believe that the SCI?s hands are tied at all. ? We have one useful example which raised concerns and now need to look at? as general solution as possible for the future in order to cover both the example that raised the concern and other cases which may occur in future. ? Thanks, ? ? Jonathan ? 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: 09 January 2013 16:58 To: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task ? I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in this specific instance: - the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on. - just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors were not aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they should be as it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a re-introduction of something that was properly introduced and voted on. - In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had given instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did not, the fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO rules, and if a constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the time to discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a motion (again, one properly introduced, seconded and voted on). - In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and referred the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion (without necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI before re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands are somewhat tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through - the mind boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and vote was improper or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive context within which ICANN is operating. 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 >>> Avri Doria 01/09/13 2:01 PM >>> Another thought experiment. There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG Policy Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, some voters got confused and voted against. Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote? Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to just reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and perhaps even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote? A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency beleive that its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be able to have a vote rescheduled at the next meeting? avri On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote: > > Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can be reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on reconsideration in the ByLaws. > > One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that one of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case it was the Chair who had been on the losing side. > > We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done. > > avri > > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote: > >> I tend to agree, >> >> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; >> To: 'Avri Doria' ; Jeff Neuman ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson ; >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM >> >> >> Hi all, >> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" type inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going to discuss tomorrow. > > the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated. > >> >> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can provide prior to our call. > > It is all in the g-counci Procedures. > And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions already made. > > >> >> 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 the original message. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM >> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I guess I do not support that. >> >> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should have past. >> >> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. >> >> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. >> >> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an NCUC based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go her way. >> >> avri >> >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >> >>> >>> Avri, >>> >>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did not happen. >>> >>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>> >>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time >>> To: Neuman, Jeff >>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that is not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion has passed or not. >>> >>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the reality of the situation. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on consensus. >>>> >>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a second measurement of consensus is not an issue. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>>> >>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: >>>> >>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two remedies were possible. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and accountability. >>>> >>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------- >> 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 avri at acm.org Wed Jan 9 22:40:16 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 17:40:16 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task In-Reply-To: <1357769207.45238.YahooMailNeo@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <50ED5F8E0200005B0009F54D@smtp.law.unh.edu> <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3E0103EC3854@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com> <1357769207.45238.YahooMailNeo@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi, The problem is that the g-council is a management process. It is the WG that are the consensus building. To go back to the council as consensus is to go back to the days of council as legislature. In its management role, the g-council does not arrive at consensus. It votes in blocks that for the most part does not even allow its members to have their own points of view but are being ordered by SG/C to vote in a block a certain way. That is not a consensus process. It is a strictly defined voting organization. In the GNSO, WG are consensus, g-council is management by vote. This may be a good thing to bring up in the upcoming review, but I do not see any way for SCI to unwind the voting complexities of the g-council. avri On 9 Jan 2013, at 17:06, J. Scott Evans wrote: > I think our problem is the meshing of to systems that are not necessarily complimentary. For this reason, I recommend that we consider getting away from the council passing motions and re-focus the efforts on calling for consensus. > > J. Scott > > j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com > > > From: "Neuman, Jeff" > To: "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" ; "avri at acm.org" ; "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" ; "jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com" > Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 1:00 PM > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > Thanks Mary. I understand the rules you have laid out, but not sure I understand the rationale? What are you trying to prevent, guard against, protect, etc.? The reason I take the opposite view is that we are a consensus building organization. If consensus can be achieved on a policy matter, regardless of whether it is when a measure of consensus is taken the first time or the 2nd time, I see no reason to recognize consensus when consensus exists. > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs > > > From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [mailto:Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 12:17 PM > To: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com > Cc: Neuman, Jeff > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > Thanks, Jonathan and Jeff. As I won't be on the SCI call this week, my view, FWIW, is that a motion that is properly introduced, seconded and voted on should NOT be re-introduced (whether in its original form or tweaked) in the absence of clear evidence indicating fraud, duress or other similar circumstance surrounding the original introduction/seconding/vote in relation to the motion. In this regard, Councilors' ignorance of the rules (e.g. effect of an abstention), and lack of instruction/direction from a Councilor's particular constituency/SG, should NOT count as the type of circumstance that ought to permit a reintroduction or re-vote on what in substance is the same motion. > > 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 > > >>> "Jonathan Robinson" 01/10/13 1:12 AM >>> > > All, > > My understanding of the role of the SCI is to determine how improvements may be made for the future. > > When the motion was re-submitted to the December meeting, I do not believe that there was any procedure to guide the Council on the re-introduction of a motion that had recently been voted on. > > This specific issue has highlighted that we may need something to guide us on this in future. I do not believe that the SCI?s hands are tied at all. > > We have one useful example which raised concerns and now need to look at as general solution as possible for the future in order to cover both the example that raised the concern and other cases which may occur in future. > > Thanks, > > > Jonathan > > 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: 09 January 2013 16:58 > To: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Cc: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in this specific instance: > > - the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on. > > - just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors were not aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they should be as it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a re-introduction of something that was properly introduced and voted on. > > - In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had given instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did not, the fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO rules, and if a constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the time to discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a motion (again, one properly introduced, seconded and voted on). > > - In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and referred the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion (without necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI before re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands are somewhat tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through - the mind boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and vote was improper or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive context within which ICANN is operating. > > 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 > > >>> Avri Doria 01/09/13 2:01 PM >>> > > Another thought experiment. > > There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG Policy Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, some voters got confused and voted against. > > Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote? > > Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to just reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and perhaps even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote? > > A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency beleive that its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be able to have a vote rescheduled at the next meeting? > > avri > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > > Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can be reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on reconsideration in the ByLaws. > > > > One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that one of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case it was the Chair who had been on the losing side. > > > > We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done. > > > > avri > > > > > > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote: > > > >> I tend to agree, > >> > >> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; > >> To: 'Avri Doria' ; Jeff Neuman ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; > >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson ; > >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM > >> > >> > >> Hi all, > >> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" type inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going to discuss tomorrow. > > > > the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated. > > > >> > >> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can provide prior to our call. > > > > It is all in the g-counci Procedures. > > And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions already made. > > > > > >> > >> 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 the original message. > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM > >> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson > >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >> > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I guess I do not support that. > >> > >> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should have past. > >> > >> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. > >> > >> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. > >> > >> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an NCUC based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go her way. > >> > >> avri > >> > >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Avri, > >>> > >>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did not happen. > >>> > >>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> > >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman > >>> > >>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] > >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time > >>> To: Neuman, Jeff > >>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson > >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that is not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion has passed or not. > >>> > >>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the reality of the situation. > >>> > >>> avri > >>> > >>> > >>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on consensus. > >>>> > >>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a second measurement of consensus is not an issue. > >>>> > >>>> Best regards, > >>>> > >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman > >>>> > >>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time > >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff > >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two remedies were possible. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and accountability. > >>>> > >>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. > >>>> > >>>> avri > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ---------------------- > >> 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 > >> > > > > > > From randruff at rnapartners.com Wed Jan 9 22:42:58 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 17:42:58 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task - Point of Order In-Reply-To: <1357769207.45238.YahooMailNeo@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <666949E368B148BD88B15F443D524BEE@ron> Dear all, As Jeff Neuman is the Observer from the GNSO Council on this matter, I am hereby asking all to respond to the SCI list only and not copy Jonathan on our exchanges. I am sure he has enough email coming at him as Chair of the Council and Jeff, as the designate, can report back to him as and when needed. Thanks everyone. 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: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 5:07 PM To: Neuman, Jeff; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task I think our problem is the meshing of to systems that are not necessarily complimentary. For this reason, I recommend that we consider getting away from the council passing motions and re-focus the efforts on calling for consensus. J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com _____ From: "Neuman, Jeff" To: "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" ; "avri at acm.org" ; "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" ; "jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com" Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 1:00 PM Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Thanks Mary. I understand the rules you have laid out, but not sure I understand the rationale? What are you trying to prevent, guard against, protect, etc.? The reason I take the opposite view is that we are a consensus building organization. If consensus can be achieved on a policy matter, regardless of whether it is when a measure of consensus is taken the first time or the 2nd time, I see no reason to recognize consensus when consensus exists. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [mailto:Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 12:17 PM To: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com Cc: Neuman, Jeff Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Thanks, Jonathan and Jeff. As I won't be on the SCI call this week, my view, FWIW, is that a motion that is properly introduced, seconded and voted on should NOT be re-introduced (whether in its original form or tweaked) in the absence of clear evidence indicating fraud, duress or other similar circumstance surrounding the original introduction/seconding/vote in relation to the motion. In this regard, Councilors' ignorance of the rules (e.g. effect of an abstention), and lack of instruction/direction from a Councilor's particular constituency/SG, should NOT count as the type of circumstance that ought to permit a reintroduction or re-vote on what in substance is the same motion. 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 >>> "Jonathan Robinson" 01/10/13 1:12 AM >>> All, My understanding of the role of the SCI is to determine how improvements may be made for the future. When the motion was re-submitted to the December meeting, I do not believe that there was any procedure to guide the Council on the re-introduction of a motion that had recently been voted on. This specific issue has highlighted that we may need something to guide us on this in future. I do not believe that the SCI?s hands are tied at all. We have one useful example which raised concerns and now need to look at as general solution as possible for the future in order to cover both the example that raised the concern and other cases which may occur in future. Thanks, Jonathan 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: 09 January 2013 16:58 To: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in this specific instance: - the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on. - just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors were not aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they should be as it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a re-introduction of something that was properly introduced and voted on. - In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had given instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did not, the fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO rules, and if a constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the time to discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a motion (again, one properly introduced, seconded and voted on). - In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and referred the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion (without necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI before re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands are somewhat tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through - the mind boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and vote was improper or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive context within which ICANN is operating. 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 >>> Avri Doria 01/09/13 2:01 PM >>> Another thought experiment. There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG Policy Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, some voters got confused and voted against. Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote? Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to just reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and perhaps even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote? A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency beleive that its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be able to have a vote rescheduled at the next meeting? avri On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote: > > Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can be reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on reconsideration in the ByLaws. > > One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that one of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case it was the Chair who had been on the losing side. > > We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done. > > avri > > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote: > >> I tend to agree, >> >> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; >> To: 'Avri Doria' ; Jeff Neuman ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson ; >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM >> >> >> Hi all, >> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" type inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going to discuss tomorrow. > > the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated. > >> >> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can provide prior to our call. > > It is all in the g-counci Procedures. > And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions already made. > > >> >> 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 the original message. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM >> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I guess I do not support that. >> >> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should have past. >> >> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. >> >> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. >> >> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an NCUC based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go her way. >> >> avri >> >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >> >>> >>> Avri, >>> >>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did not happen. >>> >>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>> >>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time >>> To: Neuman, Jeff >>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that is not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion has passed or not. >>> >>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the reality of the situation. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on consensus. >>>> >>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a second measurement of consensus is not an issue. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>>> >>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: >>>> >>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two remedies were possible. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and accountability. >>>> >>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------- >> 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 jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com Thu Jan 10 08:45:29 2013 From: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com (Jonathan Robinson) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 08:45:29 -0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task - Point of Order In-Reply-To: <666949E368B148BD88B15F443D524BEE@ron> References: <1357769207.45238.YahooMailNeo@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <666949E368B148BD88B15F443D524BEE@ron> Message-ID: <001c01cdef0e$d8746620$895d3260$@ipracon.com> Dear Ron, Thank-you for your consideration. From memory, the Registries have a primary (Ray Fassett) and alternate (myself) representative on the SCI. Given the my role as GNSO Council Chair, it seems appropriate to replace me as alternate representative from the Registries SG. We agreed at our SG meeting yesterday that Jeff Neumann should take over from me in this role. I trust that this new arrangement is acceptable to you, your vice-chair and the rest of the SCI. Best wishes, Jonathan From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] Sent: 09 January 2013 22:43 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task - Point of Order Dear all, As Jeff Neuman is the Observer from the GNSO Council on this matter, I am hereby asking all to respond to the SCI list only and not copy Jonathan on our exchanges. I am sure he has enough email coming at him as Chair of the Council and Jeff, as the designate, can report back to him as and when needed. Thanks everyone. 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: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 5:07 PM To: Neuman, Jeff; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task I think our problem is the meshing of to systems that are not necessarily complimentary. For this reason, I recommend that we consider getting away from the council passing motions and re-focus the efforts on calling for consensus. J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com _____ From: "Neuman, Jeff" To: "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" ; "avri at acm.org" ; "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" ; "jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com" Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 1:00 PM Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Thanks Mary. I understand the rules you have laid out, but not sure I understand the rationale? What are you trying to prevent, guard against, protect, etc.? The reason I take the opposite view is that we are a consensus building organization. If consensus can be achieved on a policy matter, regardless of whether it is when a measure of consensus is taken the first time or the 2nd time, I see no reason to recognize consensus when consensus exists. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [mailto:Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 12:17 PM To: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com Cc: Neuman, Jeff Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Thanks, Jonathan and Jeff. As I won't be on the SCI call this week, my view, FWIW, is that a motion that is properly introduced, seconded and voted on should NOT be re-introduced (whether in its original form or tweaked) in the absence of clear evidence indicating fraud, duress or other similar circumstance surrounding the original introduction/seconding/vote in relation to the motion. In this regard, Councilors' ignorance of the rules (e.g. effect of an abstention), and lack of instruction/direction from a Councilor's particular constituency/SG, should NOT count as the type of circumstance that ought to permit a reintroduction or re-vote on what in substance is the same motion. 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 >>> "Jonathan Robinson" 01/10/13 1:12 AM >>> All, My understanding of the role of the SCI is to determine how improvements may be made for the future. When the motion was re-submitted to the December meeting, I do not believe that there was any procedure to guide the Council on the re-introduction of a motion that had recently been voted on. This specific issue has highlighted that we may need something to guide us on this in future. I do not believe that the SCI?s hands are tied at all. We have one useful example which raised concerns and now need to look at as general solution as possible for the future in order to cover both the example that raised the concern and other cases which may occur in future. Thanks, Jonathan 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: 09 January 2013 16:58 To: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in this specific instance: - the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on. - just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors were not aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they should be as it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a re-introduction of something that was properly introduced and voted on. - In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had given instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did not, the fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO rules, and if a constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the time to discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a motion (again, one properly introduced, seconded and voted on). - In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and referred the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion (without necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI before re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands are somewhat tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through - the mind boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and vote was improper or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive context within which ICANN is operating. 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 >>> Avri Doria 01/09/13 2:01 PM >>> Another thought experiment. There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG Policy Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, some voters got confused and voted against. Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote? Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to just reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and perhaps even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote? A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency beleive that its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be able to have a vote rescheduled at the next meeting? avri On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote: > > Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can be reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on reconsideration in the ByLaws. > > One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that one of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case it was the Chair who had been on the losing side. > > We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done. > > avri > > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote: > >> I tend to agree, >> >> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; >> To: 'Avri Doria' ; Jeff Neuman ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson ; >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM >> >> >> Hi all, >> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" type inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going to discuss tomorrow. > > the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated. > >> >> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can provide prior to our call. > > It is all in the g-counci Procedures. > And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions already made. > > >> >> 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 the original message. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM >> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I guess I do not support that. >> >> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should have past. >> >> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. >> >> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. >> >> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an NCUC based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go her way. >> >> avri >> >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >> >>> >>> Avri, >>> >>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did not happen. >>> >>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>> >>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time >>> To: Neuman, Jeff >>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that is not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion has passed or not. >>> >>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the reality of the situation. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on consensus. >>>> >>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a second measurement of consensus is not an issue. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>>> >>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: >>>> >>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two remedies were possible. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and accountability. >>>> >>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------- >> 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 Glen at icann.org Thu Jan 10 08:58:59 2013 From: Glen at icann.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Glen_de_Saint_G=E9ry?=) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 00:58:59 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] MP3 recording of the SCI meeting - 9 January 2013 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, The next meeting of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting will be held on Wednesday, 23 January 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 rerecording of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Wednesday, 9 January 2013 at 21:00UTC. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20130109-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#jan (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 Alain Berranger - NPOC - Primary Thomas Rickert - NCA - Alternate Jeff Neuman - RYSG - alternate Apologies : Mary Wong -NCUC - Alternate Jen Wolfe - NCA - Primary ICANN Staff: Julie Hedlund Glen de Saint G?ry ** 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, Glen Adobe Connect chat transcript: Julie Hedlund:################## Julie Hedlund:This is the SCI Meeting for 09 January 2013 Ron A:Hi all. Welcome to the call. Alain Berranger, NPOC:will have to leave call in 30 minutes...apologies Julie Hedlund:I was dropped from the call Julie Hedlund:I am dialing back in Julie Hedlund:I am back in Jeff Neuman:I am jumping off of Adobe, but dialing in from my cell. Ron A:Thanks, Jeff. I'll look to you for #9 later in the agenda. Alain Berranger, NPOC:OK will do! thks! J. Scott Evans:the majortiy of the kudos for these revisions belongs to Anne Thomas Rickert:more than I am more than happy to work with you. Thomas Rickert:avri +1 J. Scott Evans:Proposed revision: J. Scott Evans:In the case of a proposed termination or suspension of 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 action 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 taken. The Council is required to conduct a public comment forum seeking community input on the report first prior to conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above). Thomas Rickert:In the last sentence it should read ....prior to conducting a vote on the termination _OR SUSPENSION_ of the PDP ... Thomas Rickert:With that amendment I like your proposal, J. Scott! avri:i forget how long is this call? Julie Hedlund:It's one hour avri:thanks J. Scott Evans:I just sent out a proposed revision to the list. Julie Hedlund:Thank you everyone. This meeting is adjourned. Glen de Saint G?ry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marika.konings at icann.org Thu Jan 10 09:50:38 2013 From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 01:50:38 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Agenda for SCI Meeting 09 January In-Reply-To: <1357768572.52950.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: All, I noticed that the proposed language significantly changes the current language in relation to the termination of a PDP and I thought it may be helpful to explain the original rationale of the PDP-WT for its approach (and I'm sure Jeff and/or Avri who were part of the PDP-WT will chime in if I got it wrong). It concerns the proposed section that reads 'The Council is required to conduct a public comment forum seeking community input on the report first prior to conducting a vote'. In its current form, a public comment forum on the termination of a PDP is only required if there is no recommendation from the PDP WG for such termination. As discussed by the PDP WT at the time, the idea was that if there was consensus from the WG to terminate the PDP and supermajority support from the GNSO Council to do so, there would be no need for additional public comment. Only if there would not be support from the PDP WG to terminate the PDP, the Council would be required to conduct a public comment forum to obtain community input on whether or not to terminate the PDP. I hope this helps inform your discussions on this topic. With best regards, Marika From: "J. Scott Evans" Reply-To: "J. Scott Evans" Date: Wednesday 9 January 2013 22:56 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" , Julie Hedlund , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Agenda for SCI Meeting 09 January Anne, et. al. I have attached a recommend revision to the last paragraph. J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" To: 'Julie Hedlund' ; "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 8:07 PM Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Agenda for SCI Meeting 09 January Ron, Avri, et al, Attached please see the draft J. Scott and I put together regarding the requirement for a report on termation or suspension. This is for discussion under Item 6 of the agenda below. 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 Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 3:03 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Agenda for SCI Meeting 09 January Dear SCI members, On behalf of the SCI Chair and Vice Chair, Ron Andruff and Avri Doria, below is a proposed agenda for the SCI meeting tomorrow, Wednesday, 09 January 2013 at 2100 UTC> Please let us know if you have any questions, comments, or changes. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Agenda, SCI Meeting, Wednesday, 09 January 2013 at 2100 UTC 1. Roll call (1 min) 2. Statement of Interests (1 min) 3. Approval of the agenda (1 min) 4. Chair/Vice Chair elections and terms and SCI Charter changes (10 mins) 5. Action on Working Group survey (10 mins) 6. Termination and Suspension of a PDP (15 mins) 7. GNSO Council Liaison to the SCI (5 mins) 8. Whether the SCI should solicit work or take on work from the GNSO Council (5 mins) 9. Re-submitting a motion ? Background Discussion (10 mins) 10. AOB (2 mins) 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: 5076 bytes Desc: not available URL: From alain.berranger at gmail.com Thu Jan 10 20:00:35 2013 From: alain.berranger at gmail.com (Alain Berranger) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:00:35 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task In-Reply-To: <50ED5F8E0200005B0009F54D@smtp.law.unh.edu> References: <50ED5F8E0200005B0009F54D@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: I agree fully with Mary's arguments. Best, Alain On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:16 PM, wrote: > Thanks, Jonathan and Jeff. As I won't be on the SCI call this week, my > view, FWIW, is that a motion that is properly introduced, seconded and > voted on should NOT be re-introduced (whether in its original form or > tweaked) in the absence of clear evidence indicating fraud, duress or other > similar circumstance surrounding the original introduction/seconding/vote > in relation to the motion. In this regard, Councilors' ignorance of the > rules (e.g. effect of an abstention), and lack of instruction/direction > from a Councilor's particular constituency/SG, should NOT count as the type > of circumstance that ought to permit a reintroduction or re-vote on what in > substance is the same motion. > > > 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 > > >>> "Jonathan Robinson" ** 01/10/13 1:12 AM >>> > > All,**** > > ** ** > > My understanding of the role of the SCI is to determine how improvements > may be made for the future.**** > > ** ** > > When the motion was re-submitted to the December meeting, I do not believe > that there was any procedure to guide the Council on the re-introduction of > a motion that had recently been voted on.**** > > ** ** > > This specific issue has highlighted that we may need something to guide us > on this in future. I do not believe that the SCI?s hands are tied at all. > **** > > ** ** > > We have one useful example which raised concerns and now need to look at > as general solution as possible for the future in order to cover both the > example that raised the concern and other cases which may occur in future. > **** > > ** ** > > Thanks,**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Jonathan**** > > ** ** > > *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:* 09 January 2013 16:58 > *To:* avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > *Cc:* jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task**** > > ** ** > > I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in this > specific instance: > > - the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on. > > - just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors were > not aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they should > be as it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a re-introduction > of something that was properly introduced and voted on. > > - In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had > given instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did > not, the fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO > rules, and if a constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the > time to discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a > motion (again, one properly introduced, seconded and voted on). > > - In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and > referred the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion > (without necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI > before re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands > are somewhat tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through > - the mind boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and > vote was improper or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive > context within which ICANN is operating. > > 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 **** > > > >>> Avri Doria 01/09/13 2:01 PM >>> > > Another thought experiment. > > There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG Policy > Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, > some voters got confused and voted against. > > Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote? > > Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to just > reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and > perhaps even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote? > > A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency beleive > that its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be able to > have a vote rescheduled at the next meeting? > > avri > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > > Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can be > reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on > reconsideration in the ByLaws. > > > > One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that one > of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case > it was the Chair who had been on the losing side. > > > > We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done. > > > > avri > > > > > > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote: > > > >> I tend to agree, > >> > >> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; > >> To: 'Avri Doria' ; Jeff Neuman ; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; > >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson ; > >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM > >> > >> > >> Hi all, > >> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" type > inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit > a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how > obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going > to discuss tomorrow. > > > > the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated. > > > >> > >> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO > Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can > provide prior to our call. > > > > It is all in the g-counci Procedures. > > And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions > already made. > > > > > >> > >> 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 the > original message. > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [ > mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] > On Behalf Of Avri Doria > >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM > >> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson > >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >> > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I guess I do not support that. > >> > >> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it > back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should > have past. > >> > >> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for > motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has > NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of > the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. > >> > >> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should > never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair > from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination > of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. > >> > >> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an NCUC > based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go > her way. > >> > >> avri > >> > >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Avri, > >>> > >>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the > spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two > votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some > evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did > not happen. > >>> > >>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence > of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> > >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman > >>> > >>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com ] > >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time > >>> To: Neuman, Jeff > >>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson > >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that is > not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG > at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the > Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure > that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a > motion has passed or not. > >>> > >>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the > reality of the situation. > >>> > >>> avri > >>> > >>> > >>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed > to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on > items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given > policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group > making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last > evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as > supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over > again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on > consensus. > >>>> > >>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the > result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that > ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to > be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and > unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse > within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence > that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, > harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a > second measurement of consensus is not an issue. > >>>> > >>>> Best regards, > >>>> > >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman > >>>> > >>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com ] > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time > >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff > >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to > vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), > two remedies were possible. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it > is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and > accountability. > >>>> > >>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to > make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my > stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they > should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If > it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida > was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore > would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our > hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work > according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. > >>>> > >>>> avri > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ---------------------- > >> 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 > >> > > > > **** > ** > -- 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 Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us Thu Jan 10 20:04:52 2013 From: Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us (Neuman, Jeff) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:04:52 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task In-Reply-To: References: <50ED5F8E0200005B0009F54D@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3E0103EC38E9@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com> All, I am still missing the rationale as to why the NCSG representatives believe this rule should be in place for a bottom-up consensus driven organization. Please help me understand. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: Alain Berranger [mailto:alain.berranger at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:01 PM To: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Neuman, Jeff Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task I agree fully with Mary's arguments. Best, Alain On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:16 PM, > wrote: Thanks, Jonathan and Jeff. As I won't be on the SCI call this week, my view, FWIW, is that a motion that is properly introduced, seconded and voted on should NOT be re-introduced (whether in its original form or tweaked) in the absence of clear evidence indicating fraud, duress or other similar circumstance surrounding the original introduction/seconding/vote in relation to the motion. In this regard, Councilors' ignorance of the rules (e.g. effect of an abstention), and lack of instruction/direction from a Councilor's particular constituency/SG, should NOT count as the type of circumstance that ought to permit a reintroduction or re-vote on what in substance is the same motion. 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 >>> "Jonathan Robinson" 01/10/13 1:12 AM >>> All, My understanding of the role of the SCI is to determine how improvements may be made for the future. When the motion was re-submitted to the December meeting, I do not believe that there was any procedure to guide the Council on the re-introduction of a motion that had recently been voted on. This specific issue has highlighted that we may need something to guide us on this in future. I do not believe that the SCI?s hands are tied at all. We have one useful example which raised concerns and now need to look at as general solution as possible for the future in order to cover both the example that raised the concern and other cases which may occur in future. Thanks, Jonathan 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: 09 January 2013 16:58 To: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in this specific instance: - the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on. - just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors were not aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they should be as it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a re-introduction of something that was properly introduced and voted on. - In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had given instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did not, the fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO rules, and if a constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the time to discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a motion (again, one properly introduced, seconded and voted on). - In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and referred the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion (without necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI before re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands are somewhat tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through - the mind boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and vote was improper or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive context within which ICANN is operating. 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 >>> Avri Doria > 01/09/13 2:01 PM >>> Another thought experiment. There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG Policy Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, some voters got confused and voted against. Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote? Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to just reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and perhaps even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote? A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency beleive that its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be able to have a vote rescheduled at the next meeting? avri On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote: > > Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can be reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on reconsideration in the ByLaws. > > One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that one of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case it was the Chair who had been on the losing side. > > We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done. > > avri > > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote: > >> I tend to agree, >> >> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne >; >> To: 'Avri Doria' >; Jeff Neuman >; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >; >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson >; >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM >> >> >> Hi all, >> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" type inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going to discuss tomorrow. > > the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated. > >> >> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can provide prior to our call. > > It is all in the g-counci Procedures. > And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions already made. > > >> >> 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 the original message. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM >> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I guess I do not support that. >> >> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should have past. >> >> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. >> >> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. >> >> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an NCUC based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go her way. >> >> avri >> >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >> >>> >>> Avri, >>> >>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did not happen. >>> >>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>> >>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time >>> To: Neuman, Jeff >>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that is not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion has passed or not. >>> >>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the reality of the situation. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on consensus. >>>> >>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a second measurement of consensus is not an issue. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>>> >>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: >>>> >>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two remedies were possible. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and accountability. >>>> >>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------- >> 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 >> > -- 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 avri at acm.org Thu Jan 10 20:40:25 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:40:25 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task In-Reply-To: <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3E0103EC38E9@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com> References: <50ED5F8E0200005B0009F54D@smtp.law.unh.edu> <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3E0103EC38E9@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com> Message-ID: Hi, Because the g-council has to protected from arbitrary actions. In this case you can argue that you were only doing the right thing. but everyone who bucks the rules is doing it because they want to do the right thing. the g-councl needs to be protected from arbitrary decisions on process by its leaders. Jeff you seem to be arguing from a position that sees what happened as the right thing. But the reason we have rules on voting, such incredibly complex rules that need cheat sheets and software programs to help tell when a vote has been passed successfully, is that the SG/Cs don't trust each other and thus as a GNSO we want to make sure that the management phase of the consensus process, the part that decides whether the right thing is being done, is done cleanly and according to well understood rules. avri On 10 Jan 2013, at 15:04, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > All, > > I am still missing the rationale as to why the NCSG representatives believe this rule should be in place for a bottom-up consensus driven organization. > > Please help me understand. > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs > > > From: Alain Berranger [mailto:alain.berranger at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:01 PM > To: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu > Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Neuman, Jeff > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > > I agree fully with Mary's arguments. > > Best, Alain > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:16 PM, wrote: > Thanks, Jonathan and Jeff. As I won't be on the SCI call this week, my view, FWIW, is that a motion that is properly introduced, seconded and voted on should NOT be re-introduced (whether in its original form or tweaked) in the absence of clear evidence indicating fraud, duress or other similar circumstance surrounding the original introduction/seconding/vote in relation to the motion. In this regard, Councilors' ignorance of the rules (e.g. effect of an abstention), and lack of instruction/direction from a Councilor's particular constituency/SG, should NOT count as the type of circumstance that ought to permit a reintroduction or re-vote on what in substance is the same motion. > > > 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 > > >>> "Jonathan Robinson" 01/10/13 1:12 AM >>> > All, > > My understanding of the role of the SCI is to determine how improvements may be made for the future. > > When the motion was re-submitted to the December meeting, I do not believe that there was any procedure to guide the Council on the re-introduction of a motion that had recently been voted on. > > This specific issue has highlighted that we may need something to guide us on this in future. I do not believe that the SCI?s hands are tied at all. > > We have one useful example which raised concerns and now need to look at as general solution as possible for the future in order to cover both the example that raised the concern and other cases which may occur in future. > > Thanks, > > > Jonathan > > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf OfMary.Wong at law.unh.edu > Sent: 09 January 2013 16:58 > To: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Cc: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in this specific instance: > > - the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on. > > - just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors were not aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they should be as it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a re-introduction of something that was properly introduced and voted on. > > - In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had given instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did not, the fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO rules, and if a constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the time to discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a motion (again, one properly introduced, seconded and voted on). > > - In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and referred the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion (without necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI before re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands are somewhat tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through - the mind boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and vote was improper or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive context within which ICANN is operating. > > 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 > > >>> Avri Doria 01/09/13 2:01 PM >>> > > Another thought experiment. > > There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG Policy Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, some voters got confused and voted against. > > Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote? > > Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to just reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and perhaps even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote? > > A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency beleive that its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be able to have a vote rescheduled at the next meeting? > > avri > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > > Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can be reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on reconsideration in the ByLaws. > > > > One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that one of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case it was the Chair who had been on the losing side. > > > > We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done. > > > > avri > > > > > > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote: > > > >> I tend to agree, > >> > >> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; > >> To: 'Avri Doria' ; Jeff Neuman ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; > >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson ; > >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM > >> > >> > >> Hi all, > >> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" type inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going to discuss tomorrow. > > > > the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated. > > > >> > >> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can provide prior to our call. > > > > It is all in the g-counci Procedures. > > And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions already made. > > > > > >> > >> 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 the original message. > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM > >> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson > >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >> > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I guess I do not support that. > >> > >> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should have past. > >> > >> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. > >> > >> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. > >> > >> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an NCUC based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go her way. > >> > >> avri > >> > >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Avri, > >>> > >>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did not happen. > >>> > >>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> > >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman > >>> > >>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] > >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time > >>> To: Neuman, Jeff > >>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson > >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that is not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion has passed or not. > >>> > >>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the reality of the situation. > >>> > >>> avri > >>> > >>> > >>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on consensus. > >>>> > >>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a second measurement of consensus is not an issue. > >>>> > >>>> Best regards, > >>>> > >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman > >>>> > >>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time > >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff > >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two remedies were possible. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and accountability. > >>>> > >>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. > >>>> > >>>> avri > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ---------------------- > >> 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 > >> > > > > > > > -- > 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. From jscottevans at yahoo.com Thu Jan 10 21:03:56 2013 From: jscottevans at yahoo.com (J. Scott Evans) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 13:03:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Agenda for SCI Meeting 09 January In-Reply-To: References: <1357768572.52950.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1357851836.34507.YahooMailNeo@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Dear All: Taking into account Marika's comments on the rationale, I have deleted the sentence that requires a public comment when the termination or suspension is recommending by the Working Group. ?Will this work? J. Scott ? j. scott evans - ?head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com ________________________________ From: Marika Konings To: J. Scott Evans ; "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" ; Julie Hedlund ; "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 1:50 AM Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Agenda for SCI Meeting 09 January All, I noticed that the proposed language significantly changes the current language in relation to the termination of a PDP and I thought it may be helpful to explain the original rationale of the PDP-WT for its approach (and I'm sure Jeff and/or Avri who were part of the PDP-WT will chime in if I got it wrong). It concerns the proposed section that reads?'The Council is required to conduct a public comment forum seeking community input on the report first prior to conducting a vote'. In its current form, a public comment forum on the termination of a PDP is only required if there is no recommendation from the PDP WG for such termination. As discussed by the PDP WT at the time, the idea was that if there was consensus from the WG to terminate the PDP and supermajority support from the GNSO Council to do so, there would be no need for additional public comment. Only if there would not be support from the PDP WG to terminate the PDP, the Council would be required to conduct a public comment forum to obtain community input on whether or not to terminate the PDP. I hope this helps inform your discussions on this topic. With best regards, Marika From: "J. Scott Evans" Reply-To: "J. Scott Evans" Date: Wednesday 9 January 2013 22:56 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" , Julie Hedlund , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Agenda for SCI Meeting 09 January Anne, et. al. I have attached a recommend revision to the last paragraph. J. Scott ? j. scott evans - ?head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com ________________________________ From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" To: 'Julie Hedlund' ; "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 8:07 PM Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Agenda for SCI Meeting 09 January Ron, Avri, et al, Attached please see the draft J. Scott and I put together regarding the requirement for a report on termation or suspension.? This is for discussion under Item 6 of the agenda below. ? 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 Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 3:03 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Agenda for SCI Meeting 09 January Dear SCI members, On behalf of the SCI Chair and Vice Chair, Ron Andruff and Avri Doria, below is a proposed agenda for the SCI meeting tomorrow, Wednesday, 09 January 2013 at 2100 UTC> Please let us know if you have any questions, comments, or changes. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Agenda, SCI Meeting, Wednesday, 09 January 2013 at 2100 UTC 1. Roll call (1 min) 2. Statement of Interests (1 min) 3. Approval of the agenda (1 min) 4. Chair/Vice Chair elections and terms and SCI Charter changes (10 mins) 5. Action on Working Group survey (10 mins) 6.??Termination and Suspension of a PDP (15 mins) 7. GNSO Council Liaison to the SCI (5 mins) 8.??Whether the SCI should solicit work or take on work from the GNSO Council (5 mins) 9.??Re-submitting a motion ? Background Discussion (10 mins) 10. AOB (2 mins) ? ________________________________ 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-TerminationPDP4-Revised.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 19495 bytes Desc: not available URL: From alain.berranger at gmail.com Thu Jan 10 22:18:30 2013 From: alain.berranger at gmail.com (Alain Berranger) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 17:18:30 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task In-Reply-To: <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3E0103EC38E9@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com> References: <50ED5F8E0200005B0009F54D@smtp.law.unh.edu> <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3E0103EC38E9@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com> Message-ID: Hi Jeff, The best to you in 2013! I'll risk a personal opinion...my personal understanding from Avri and Mary's arguments is that the consensus building process is carried out at the WG level where a limited number of volunteers muck diligently through the issues in an iterative process (hopefully evidence-based but the Guidelines never refer to those exact words) under the leadership of the Chair; the findings and recommendations can then be discussed with a much broader audience like the Chartering Organization (I just finished re-reading a second time today the GNSO Working Groups Guidelines which confirm to me that consensus building process is to occur at least at that level, and before recommendations are carried forward). At the Council level, I' not sure, not read enough nor experienced enough...but maybe I'm taking too simplistic an approach? or I am uninformed? I'm not familiar enough with the GNSO Operating Procedures but does any of the long-time experts here know if they actually shed some light on consensus building processes at the Council level? and if they do, why the need have the elaborate voting structure? Thanks for any clarification here! Cheers, Alain On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > All,**** > > ** ** > > I am still missing the rationale as to why the NCSG representatives > believe this rule should be in place for a bottom-up consensus driven > organization. **** > > ** ** > > Please help me understand.**** > > ** ** > > *Jeffrey J. Neuman** > **Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs* > > **** > > ** ** > > *From:* Alain Berranger [mailto:alain.berranger at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:01 PM > *To:* Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu > *Cc:* avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; > jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Neuman, Jeff > > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > I agree fully with Mary's arguments.**** > > ** ** > > Best, Alain**** > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:16 PM, wrote:**** > > Thanks, Jonathan and Jeff. As I won't be on the SCI call this week, my > view, FWIW, is that a motion that is properly introduced, seconded and > voted on should NOT be re-introduced (whether in its original form or > tweaked) in the absence of clear evidence indicating fraud, duress or other > similar circumstance surrounding the original introduction/seconding/vote > in relation to the motion. In this regard, Councilors' ignorance of the > rules (e.g. effect of an abstention), and lack of instruction/direction > from a Councilor's particular constituency/SG, should NOT count as the type > of circumstance that ought to permit a reintroduction or re-vote on what in > substance is the same motion.**** > > > > 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 **** > > ** ** > > >>> "Jonathan Robinson" 01/10/13 1:12 AM >>>**** > > All,**** > > **** > > My understanding of the role of the SCI is to determine how improvements > may be made for the future.**** > > **** > > When the motion was re-submitted to the December meeting, I do not believe > that there was any procedure to guide the Council on the re-introduction of > a motion that had recently been voted on.**** > > **** > > This specific issue has highlighted that we may need something to guide us > on this in future. I do not believe that the SCI?s hands are tied at all. > **** > > **** > > We have one useful example which raised concerns and now need to look at > as general solution as possible for the future in order to cover both the > example that raised the concern and other cases which may occur in future. > **** > > **** > > Thanks,**** > > **** > > **** > > Jonathan**** > > **** > > *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:* 09 January 2013 16:58 > *To:* avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > *Cc:* jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task**** > > **** > > I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in this > specific instance: > > - the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on. > > - just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors were > not aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they should > be as it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a re-introduction > of something that was properly introduced and voted on. > > - In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had > given instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did > not, the fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO > rules, and if a constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the > time to discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a > motion (again, one properly introduced, seconded and voted on). > > - In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and > referred the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion > (without necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI > before re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands > are somewhat tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through > - the mind boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and > vote was improper or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive > context within which ICANN is operating. > > 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 **** > > > >>> Avri Doria 01/09/13 2:01 PM >>> > > Another thought experiment. > > There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG Policy > Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, > some voters got confused and voted against. > > Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote? > > Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to just > reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and > perhaps even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote? > > A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency beleive > that its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be able to > have a vote rescheduled at the next meeting? > > avri > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > > Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can be > reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on > reconsideration in the ByLaws. > > > > One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that one > of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case > it was the Chair who had been on the losing side. > > > > We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done. > > > > avri > > > > > > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote: > > > >> I tend to agree, > >> > >> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; > >> To: 'Avri Doria' ; Jeff Neuman ; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; > >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson ; > >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM > >> > >> > >> Hi all, > >> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" type > inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit > a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how > obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going > to discuss tomorrow. > > > > the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated. > > > >> > >> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO > Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can > provide prior to our call. > > > > It is all in the g-counci Procedures. > > And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions > already made. > > > > > >> > >> 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 the > original message. > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [ > mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] > On Behalf Of Avri Doria > >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM > >> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson > >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >> > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I guess I do not support that. > >> > >> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it > back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should > have past. > >> > >> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for > motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has > NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of > the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. > >> > >> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should > never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair > from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination > of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. > >> > >> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an NCUC > based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go > her way. > >> > >> avri > >> > >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Avri, > >>> > >>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the > spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two > votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some > evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did > not happen. > >>> > >>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence > of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> > >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman > >>> > >>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com ] > >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time > >>> To: Neuman, Jeff > >>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson > >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that is > not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG > at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the > Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure > that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a > motion has passed or not. > >>> > >>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the > reality of the situation. > >>> > >>> avri > >>> > >>> > >>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed > to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on > items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given > policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group > making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last > evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as > supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over > again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on > consensus. > >>>> > >>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the > result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that > ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to > be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and > unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse > within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence > that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, > harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a > second measurement of consensus is not an issue. > >>>> > >>>> Best regards, > >>>> > >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman > >>>> > >>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com ] > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time > >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff > >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to > vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), > two remedies were possible. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it > is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and > accountability. > >>>> > >>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to > make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my > stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they > should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If > it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida > was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore > would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our > hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work > according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. > >>>> > >>>> avri > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ---------------------- > >> 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 > >> > > **** > > > > **** > > ** ** > > -- > 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.**** > > ** ** > -- 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 alain.berranger at gmail.com Tue Jan 15 18:26:08 2013 From: alain.berranger at gmail.com (Alain Berranger) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:26:08 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task In-Reply-To: <926FFC092954C2419CE5D66B8B3DFD47504FEF07@SN2PRD0610MB395.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> References: <50ED5F8E0200005B0009F54D@smtp.law.unh.edu> <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3E0103EC38E9@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com> <926FFC092954C2419CE5D66B8B3DFD47504FEF07@SN2PRD0610MB395.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Thanks Jennifer, Common sense speaks again! The black belt argument will often close a discussion, though!!!! ;-) Many involved with ICANN would likely benefit from six sigma training... including myself! Let's see what the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements Implementation I discussions will lead too. Cheers, Alain On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Jen Wolfe wrote: > Hi everyone,**** > > ** ** > > I hope your new year is off to a great start. I know I am new to the > council and this committee so forgive me if I am misunderstanding our role, > but what confused me about this particular issue was that all of the > councilors had the opportunity for discussion, to ask questions and for > consensus. A vote was taken and then a councilor asked further clarifying > questions and then wanted to change his vote. From a strictly process > standpoint, I am not clear on why a new vote should be allowed once the > time for discussion and clarifying questions close. In any other > parliamentary procedure, legislative body or corporate governance on > boards, once a vote is taken, that?s it, even if someone misunderstood > something procedurally or substantively. **** > > ** ** > > I fully understand the need for consensus, but once discussion closes and > a vote is taken, from a process and procedural standpoint, it?s a slippery > slope to start allowing votes to be re-opened because one person asked a > clarifying question after the vote was taken. It not only takes up > valuable time of the council in discussing new issues, but could be used > inappropriately in the future if this were permissible. **** > > ** ** > > I look forward to participating in this committee. I have a black belt in > six sigma process improvement and pride myself on finding ways to function > more efficiently and hope I can provide meaningful contributions to this > committee. **** > > ** ** > > Have a great weekend!**** > > ** ** > > *jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB* > > managing director, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy adivsory firm*** > * > > managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual > property law firm**** > > *IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011 & 2012* > > *Follow Me:** **[image: Description: Description: > cid:image001.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0]* > * **[image: Description: Description: cid:image002.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0]* > * **[image: Description: Description: cid:image003.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0]* > * > **Blog:** **What will you do when your CEO asks why you didn?t apply for > a gTLD?* ** > > *Book:** **Domain Names Rewired* > ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Neuman, Jeff > *Sent:* Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:05 PM > *To:* Alain Berranger; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu > *Cc:* avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > *Subject:* RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task**** > > ** ** > > All,**** > > ** ** > > I am still missing the rationale as to why the NCSG representatives > believe this rule should be in place for a bottom-up consensus driven > organization. **** > > ** ** > > Please help me understand.**** > > ** ** > > *Jeffrey J. Neuman** > **Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs***** > > ** ** > > *From:* Alain Berranger [mailto:alain.berranger at gmail.com] > > *Sent:* Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:01 PM > *To:* Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu > *Cc:* avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; > jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Neuman, Jeff > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > I agree fully with Mary's arguments.**** > > ** ** > > Best, Alain**** > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:16 PM, wrote:**** > > Thanks, Jonathan and Jeff. As I won't be on the SCI call this week, my > view, FWIW, is that a motion that is properly introduced, seconded and > voted on should NOT be re-introduced (whether in its original form or > tweaked) in the absence of clear evidence indicating fraud, duress or other > similar circumstance surrounding the original introduction/seconding/vote > in relation to the motion. In this regard, Councilors' ignorance of the > rules (e.g. effect of an abstention), and lack of instruction/direction > from a Councilor's particular constituency/SG, should NOT count as the type > of circumstance that ought to permit a reintroduction or re-vote on what in > substance is the same motion.**** > > > > 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 **** > > ** ** > > >>> "Jonathan Robinson" 01/10/13 1:12 AM >>>**** > > All,**** > > **** > > My understanding of the role of the SCI is to determine how improvements > may be made for the future.**** > > **** > > When the motion was re-submitted to the December meeting, I do not believe > that there was any procedure to guide the Council on the re-introduction of > a motion that had recently been voted on.**** > > **** > > This specific issue has highlighted that we may need something to guide us > on this in future. I do not believe that the SCI?s hands are tied at all. > **** > > **** > > We have one useful example which raised concerns and now need to look at > as general solution as possible for the future in order to cover both the > example that raised the concern and other cases which may occur in future. > **** > > **** > > Thanks,**** > > **** > > **** > > Jonathan**** > > **** > > *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:* 09 January 2013 16:58 > *To:* avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > *Cc:* jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task**** > > **** > > I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in this > specific instance: > > - the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on. > > - just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors were > not aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they should > be as it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a re-introduction > of something that was properly introduced and voted on. > > - In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had > given instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did > not, the fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO > rules, and if a constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the > time to discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a > motion (again, one properly introduced, seconded and voted on). > > - In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and > referred the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion > (without necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI > before re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands > are somewhat tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through > - the mind boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and > vote was improper or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive > context within which ICANN is operating. > > 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 **** > > > >>> Avri Doria 01/09/13 2:01 PM >>> > > Another thought experiment. > > There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG Policy > Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, > some voters got confused and voted against. > > Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote? > > Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to just > reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and > perhaps even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote? > > A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency beleive > that its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be able to > have a vote rescheduled at the next meeting? > > avri > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > > Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can be > reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on > reconsideration in the ByLaws. > > > > One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that one > of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case > it was the Chair who had been on the losing side. > > > > We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done. > > > > avri > > > > > > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote: > > > >> I tend to agree, > >> > >> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; > >> To: 'Avri Doria' ; Jeff Neuman ; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; > >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson ; > >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM > >> > >> > >> Hi all, > >> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" type > inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit > a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how > obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going > to discuss tomorrow. > > > > the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated. > > > >> > >> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO > Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can > provide prior to our call. > > > > It is all in the g-counci Procedures. > > And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions > already made. > > > > > >> > >> 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 the > original message. > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [ > mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] > On Behalf Of Avri Doria > >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM > >> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson > >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >> > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I guess I do not support that. > >> > >> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it > back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should > have past. > >> > >> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for > motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has > NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of > the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. > >> > >> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should > never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair > from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination > of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. > >> > >> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an NCUC > based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go > her way. > >> > >> avri > >> > >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Avri, > >>> > >>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the > spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two > votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some > evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did > not happen. > >>> > >>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence > of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> > >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman > >>> > >>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com ] > >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time > >>> To: Neuman, Jeff > >>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson > >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that is > not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG > at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the > Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure > that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a > motion has passed or not. > >>> > >>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the > reality of the situation. > >>> > >>> avri > >>> > >>> > >>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed > to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on > items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given > policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group > making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last > evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as > supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over > again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on > consensus. > >>>> > >>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the > result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that > ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to > be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and > unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse > within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence > that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, > harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a > second measurement of consensus is not an issue. > >>>> > >>>> Best regards, > >>>> > >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman > >>>> > >>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com ] > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time > >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff > >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to > vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), > two remedies were possible. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it > is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and > accountability. > >>>> > >>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to > make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my > stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they > should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If > it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida > was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore > would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our > hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work > according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. > >>>> > >>>> avri > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ---------------------- > >> 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 > >> > > **** > > > > **** > > ** ** > > -- > 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.**** > > ** ** > -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 484 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: not available URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Tue Jan 15 19:40:40 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 19:40:40 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task In-Reply-To: References: <50ED5F8E0200005B0009F54D@smtp.law.unh.edu> <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3E0103EC38E9@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com> <926FFC092954C2419CE5D66B8B3DFD47504FEF07@SN2PRD0610MB395.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9602BB231@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Hi all, I find myself a bit more concerned about the possible effect of such a rule on quashing motions for reconsideration. There may even be changed circumstances that might justify reconsideration and one would not want to make a rule that no motion that has previously been voted upon can be brought before the Council again. I also tend to wonder whether a Councilor, especially a newer Councilor, laboring under a misimpression about the conflict of interest rules, might not, in itself, constitute a changed circumstance. Maybe I am less critical because the Councilor in question is an IPC Councilor and also a very good lawyer. If he was confused about this, I consider it possible that anyone might be. So I tend to disagree that if the Councilor in question had been NCSG, that there would have been a uproar about the change in vote (or at least there shouldn't be in an ideal ICANN world). There is an aspect of this which for me involves "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." So it seems that if we say this is okay the way it happened, the same leniency is given going forward to any Councilor who labors under a misunderstanding of Council rules, subject perhaps to the discretion of the Chair in bringing the motion again. The harder line would be: "Dear Councilor: You are responsible for knowing all the rules before you vote and no misunderstanding on your part as to any issue can serve as a basis for resubmission of a motion." If we go this route, new Councilors should definitely be trained accordingly. Do new GNSO Councilors receive training and orientation as is the norm for most Boards? Anne [cid:031522619 at 15012013-0BAC]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 Alain Berranger Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11:26 AM To: Jen Wolfe Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Thanks Jennifer, Common sense speaks again! The black belt argument will often close a discussion, though!!!! ;-) Many involved with ICANN would likely benefit from six sigma training... including myself! Let's see what the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements Implementation I discussions will lead too. Cheers, Alain On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Jen Wolfe > wrote: Hi everyone, I hope your new year is off to a great start. I know I am new to the council and this committee so forgive me if I am misunderstanding our role, but what confused me about this particular issue was that all of the councilors had the opportunity for discussion, to ask questions and for consensus. A vote was taken and then a councilor asked further clarifying questions and then wanted to change his vote. From a strictly process standpoint, I am not clear on why a new vote should be allowed once the time for discussion and clarifying questions close. In any other parliamentary procedure, legislative body or corporate governance on boards, once a vote is taken, that's it, even if someone misunderstood something procedurally or substantively. I fully understand the need for consensus, but once discussion closes and a vote is taken, from a process and procedural standpoint, it's a slippery slope to start allowing votes to be re-opened because one person asked a clarifying question after the vote was taken. It not only takes up valuable time of the council in discussing new issues, but could be used inappropriately in the future if this were permissible. I look forward to participating in this committee. I have a black belt in six sigma process improvement and pride myself on finding ways to function more efficiently and hope I can provide meaningful contributions to this committee. Have a great weekend! jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB managing director, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy adivsory firm managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual property law firm IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011 & 2012 Follow Me: [Description: Description: cid:image001.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] [Description: Description: cid:image002.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] [Description: Description: cid:image003.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] Blog: What will you do when your CEO asks why you didn't apply for a gTLD? Book: Domain Names Rewired From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:05 PM To: Alain Berranger; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task All, I am still missing the rationale as to why the NCSG representatives believe this rule should be in place for a bottom-up consensus driven organization. Please help me understand. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: Alain Berranger [mailto:alain.berranger at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:01 PM To: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Neuman, Jeff Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task I agree fully with Mary's arguments. Best, Alain On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:16 PM, > wrote: Thanks, Jonathan and Jeff. As I won't be on the SCI call this week, my view, FWIW, is that a motion that is properly introduced, seconded and voted on should NOT be re-introduced (whether in its original form or tweaked) in the absence of clear evidence indicating fraud, duress or other similar circumstance surrounding the original introduction/seconding/vote in relation to the motion. In this regard, Councilors' ignorance of the rules (e.g. effect of an abstention), and lack of instruction/direction from a Councilor's particular constituency/SG, should NOT count as the type of circumstance that ought to permit a reintroduction or re-vote on what in substance is the same motion. 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 >>> "Jonathan Robinson" 01/10/13 1:12 AM >>> All, My understanding of the role of the SCI is to determine how improvements may be made for the future. When the motion was re-submitted to the December meeting, I do not believe that there was any procedure to guide the Council on the re-introduction of a motion that had recently been voted on. This specific issue has highlighted that we may need something to guide us on this in future. I do not believe that the SCI?s hands are tied at all. We have one useful example which raised concerns and now need to look at as general solution as possible for the future in order to cover both the example that raised the concern and other cases which may occur in future. Thanks, Jonathan 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: 09 January 2013 16:58 To: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in this specific instance: - the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on. - just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors were not aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they should be as it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a re-introduction of something that was properly introduced and voted on. - In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had given instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did not, the fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO rules, and if a constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the time to discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a motion (again, one properly introduced, seconded and voted on). - In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and referred the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion (without necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI before re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands are somewhat tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through - the mind boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and vote was improper or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive context within which ICANN is operating. 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 >>> Avri Doria > 01/09/13 2:01 PM >>> Another thought experiment. There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG Policy Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, some voters got confused and voted against. Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote? Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to just reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and perhaps even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote? A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency beleive that its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be able to have a vote rescheduled at the next meeting? avri On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote: > > Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can be reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on reconsideration in the ByLaws. > > One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that one of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case it was the Chair who had been on the losing side. > > We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done. > > avri > > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote: > >> I tend to agree, >> >> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne >; >> To: 'Avri Doria' >; Jeff Neuman >; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >; >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson >; >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM >> >> >> Hi all, >> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" type inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going to discuss tomorrow. > > the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated. > >> >> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can provide prior to our call. > > It is all in the g-counci Procedures. > And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions already made. > > >> >> 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 the original message. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM >> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I guess I do not support that. >> >> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should have past. >> >> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. >> >> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. >> >> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an NCUC based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go her way. >> >> avri >> >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >> >>> >>> Avri, >>> >>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did not happen. >>> >>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>> >>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time >>> To: Neuman, Jeff >>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that is not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion has passed or not. >>> >>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the reality of the situation. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on consensus. >>>> >>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a second measurement of consensus is not an issue. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>>> >>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: >>>> >>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two remedies were possible. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and accountability. >>>> >>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------- >> 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 >> > -- 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. -- 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: -------------- 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.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 484 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: From Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Tue Jan 15 20:01:19 2013 From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu (Mary Wong) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:01:19 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9602BB231@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> References: <50ED5F8E0200005B0009F54D@smtp.law.unh.edu> <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3E0103EC38E9@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com> <926FFC092954C2419CE5D66B8B3DFD47504FEF07@SN2PRD0610MB395.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9602BB231@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <50F56F3F.D84C.005B.0@law.unh.edu> $(UJen put it much more elegantly than I did, but in essence that's what I was trying to say. That said, I agree that a hard-and-fast rule for all circumstances may be unsuitable, so I'm sympathetic to a "changed circumstance" argument - that, however, is not what we've been tasked to discuss in this instance. In this instance, nothing changed. The reason the motion was re-submitted and re-voted on was because a Councilor did not understand the Council's own rules. Regardless of whether in the future it is an IPC, NCSG or any other SG/C's representative, I see absolutely no basis for a re-vote in this type of situation. The rules are clearly stated, publicly available and (as I recall) linked to in every Council meeting agenda document. Even if the person in question is a brand-new novice Councilor - which is not the case here - I'd be of the same view. Anyone elected to represent a constituent group has to be assumed to know the rules and procedures under which they are to discharge their office (just as ignorance of the law is no excuse.) I agree also that some orientation/training for new Councilors may be desirable, but that again is beyond our remit. As for the question of consensus, well, at Council level a vote IS representative of consensus (or lack thereof). Each SG/C has internal rules as to how their Councilors express their SG/C's views through formal voting - hence the care taken in the GNSO rules to make sure there has been adequate instruction of, e.g., a proxy replacement for a Councilor. Again, the fact that an SG/C failed in a particular instance to instruct their representative isn't sufficient basis in my view to justify a re-submission and re-vote. 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: "'Alain Berranger'" , Jen Wolfe CC: "Neuman, Jeff" , "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" , "avri at acm.org" , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Date: 1/15/2013 2:41 PM Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Hi all, I find myself a bit more concerned about the possible effect of such a rule on quashing motions for reconsideration. There may even be changed circumstances that might justify reconsideration and one would not want to make a rule that no motion that has previously been voted upon can be brought before the Council again. I also tend to wonder whether a Councilor, especially a newer Councilor, laboring under a misimpression about the conflict of interest rules, might not, in itself, constitute a changed circumstance. Maybe I am less critical because the Councilor in question is an IPC Councilor and also a very good lawyer. If he was confused about this, I consider it possible that anyone might be. So I tend to disagree that if the Councilor in question had been NCSG, that there would have been a uproar about the change in vote (or at least there shouldn't be in an ideal ICANN world). There is an aspect of this which for me involves "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." So it seems that if we say this is okay the way it happened, the same leniency is given going forward to any Councilor who labors under a misunderstanding of Council rules, subject perhaps to the discretion of the Chair in bringing the motion again. The harder line would be: "Dear Councilor: You are responsible for knowing all the rules before you vote and no misunderstanding on your part as to any issue can serve as a basis for resubmission of a motion." If we go this route, new Councilors should definitely be trained accordingly. Do new GNSO Councilors receive training and orientation as is the norm for most Boards? 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 Alain Berranger Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11:26 AM To: Jen Wolfe Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Thanks Jennifer, Common sense speaks again! The black belt argument will often close a discussion, though!!!! ;-) Many involved with ICANN would likely benefit from six sigma training... including myself! Let's see what the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements Implementation I discussions will lead too. Cheers, Alain On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Jen Wolfe wrote: Hi everyone, I hope your new year is off to a great start. I know I am new to the council and this committee so forgive me if I am misunderstanding our role, but what confused me about this particular issue was that all of the councilors had the opportunity for discussion, to ask questions and for consensus. A vote was taken and then a councilor asked further clarifying questions and then wanted to change his vote. From a strictly process standpoint, I am not clear on why a new vote should be allowed once the time for discussion and clarifying questions close. In any other parliamentary procedure, legislative body or corporate governance on boards, once a vote is taken, that?s it, even if someone misunderstood something procedurally or substantively. I fully understand the need for consensus, but once discussion closes and a vote is taken, from a process and procedural standpoint, it?s a slippery slope to start allowing votes to be re-opened because one person asked a clarifying question after the vote was taken. It not only takes up valuable time of the council in discussing new issues, but could be used inappropriately in the future if this were permissible. I look forward to participating in this committee. I have a black belt in six sigma process improvement and pride myself on finding ways to function more efficiently and hope I can provide meaningful contributions to this committee. Have a great weekend! jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB managing director, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy adivsory firm managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual property law firm IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011 & 2012 Follow Me: ( http://www.linkedin.com/in/jenwolfe ) ( http://pinterest.com/wolfedomain/ ) ( https://twitter.com/jenwolfe ) Blog: What will you do when your CEO asks why you didn?t apply for a gTLD? ( http://jenwolfe.com/c-suite/ ) Book: Domain Names Rewired ( http://www.amazon.com/Domain-Names-Rewired-Strategies-Protection/dp/1118312627 ) From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:05 PM To: Alain Berranger; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task All, I am still missing the rationale as to why the NCSG representatives believe this rule should be in place for a bottom-up consensus driven organization. Please help me understand. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: Alain Berranger [mailto:alain.berranger at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:01 PM To: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Neuman, Jeff Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task I agree fully with Mary's arguments. Best, Alain On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:16 PM, wrote: Thanks, Jonathan and Jeff. As I won't be on the SCI call this week, my view, FWIW, is that a motion that is properly introduced, seconded and voted on should NOT be re-introduced (whether in its original form or tweaked) in the absence of clear evidence indicating fraud, duress or other similar circumstance surrounding the original introduction/seconding/vote in relation to the motion. In this regard, Councilors' ignorance of the rules (e.g. effect of an abstention), and lack of instruction/direction from a Councilor's particular constituency/SG, should NOT count as the type of circumstance that ought to permit a reintroduction or re-vote on what in substance is the same motion. 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 ( tel: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 >>> "Jonathan Robinson" 01/10/13 1:12 AM >>> All, My understanding of the role of the SCI is to determine how improvements may be made for the future. When the motion was re-submitted to the December meeting, I do not believe that there was any procedure to guide the Council on the re-introduction of a motion that had recently been voted on. This specific issue has highlighted that we may need something to guide us on this in future. I do not believe that the SCI?s hands are tied at all. We have one useful example which raised concerns and now need to look at as general solution as possible for the future in order to cover both the example that raised the concern and other cases which may occur in future. Thanks, Jonathan 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: 09 January 2013 16:58 To: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in this specific instance: - the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on. - just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors were not aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they should be as it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a re-introduction of something that was properly introduced and voted on. - In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had given instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did not, the fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO rules, and if a constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the time to discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a motion (again, one properly introduced, seconded and voted on). - In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and referred the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion (without necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI before re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands are somewhat tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through - the mind boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and vote was improper or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive context within which ICANN is operating. 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 ( tel: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 >>> Avri Doria 01/09/13 2:01 PM >>> Another thought experiment. There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG Policy Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, some voters got confused and voted against. Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote? Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to just reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and perhaps even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote? A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency beleive that its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be able to have a vote rescheduled at the next meeting? avri On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote: > > Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can be reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on reconsideration in the ByLaws. > > One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that one of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case it was the Chair who had been on the losing side. > > We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done. > > avri > > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote: > >> I tend to agree, >> >> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; >> To: 'Avri Doria' ; Jeff Neuman ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson ; >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM >> >> >> Hi all, >> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" type inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going to discuss tomorrow. > > the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated. > >> >> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can provide prior to our call. > > It is all in the g-counci Procedures. > And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions already made. > > >> >> 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 ( tel:%28520%29%20629-4428 ) * Fax (520) 879-4725 ( tel:%28520%29%20879-4725 ) >> AAikman at LRLaw.com * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information >> intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. >> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the >> agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are >> hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or >> copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication >> was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM >> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I guess I do not support that. >> >> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should have past. >> >> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. >> >> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. >> >> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an NCUC based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go her way. >> >> avri >> >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >> >>> >>> Avri, >>> >>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did not happen. >>> >>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>> >>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time >>> To: Neuman, Jeff >>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that is not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion has passed or not. >>> >>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the reality of the situation. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on consensus. >>>> >>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a second measurement of consensus is not an issue. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>>> >>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: >>>> >>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two remedies were possible. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and accountability. >>>> >>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------- >> For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com. >> >> Phoenix (602)262-5311 ( tel:%28602%29262-5311 ) Reno (775)823-2900 ( tel:%28775%29823-2900 ) >> Tucson (520)622-2090 ( tel:%28520%29622-2090 ) Albuquerque (505)764-5400 ( tel:%28505%29764-5400 ) >> Las Vegas (702)949-8200 ( tel:%28702%29949-8200 ) Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 ( tel:%28650%29391-1380 ) >> >> 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 >> > -- 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 ( tel:%2B1%20514%20484%207824 ); M:+1 514 704 7824 ( tel:%2B1%20514%20704%207824 ) 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. -- 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: -------------- 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/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 484 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us Tue Jan 15 20:07:35 2013 From: Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us (Neuman, Jeff) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:07:35 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task In-Reply-To: <50F56F3F.D84C.005B.0@law.unh.edu> References: <50ED5F8E0200005B0009F54D@smtp.law.unh.edu> <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3E0103EC38E9@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com> <926FFC092954C2419CE5D66B8B3DFD47504FEF07@SN2PRD0610MB395.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9602BB231@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> <50F56F3F.D84C.005B.0@law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3E0103EC3B6B@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com> I think this needs to be discussed. I am completely against this sort of rigidity in a bottom-up consensus process especially when the GNSO is acting on a proposition that had consensus support of a working group. We are not a legislature or even a rule making body. We are supposed to be the body that ensures the policy development process works. In this case, had you not allowed the revote, you would have had the GNSO voting down a policy that was approved by a consensus of the working group that proposed the recommendation. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: Mary Wong [mailto:Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu] Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 3:01 PM Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Neuman, Jeff Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Jen put it much more elegantly than I did, but in essence that's what I was trying to say. That said, I agree that a hard-and-fast rule for all circumstances may be unsuitable, so I'm sympathetic to a "changed circumstance" argument - that, however, is not what we've been tasked to discuss in this instance. In this instance, nothing changed. The reason the motion was re-submitted and re-voted on was because a Councilor did not understand the Council's own rules. Regardless of whether in the future it is an IPC, NCSG or any other SG/C's representative, I see absolutely no basis for a re-vote in this type of situation. The rules are clearly stated, publicly available and (as I recall) linked to in every Council meeting agenda document. Even if the person in question is a brand-new novice Councilor - which is not the case here - I'd be of the same view. Anyone elected to represent a constituent group has to be assumed to know the rules and procedures under which they are to discharge their office (just as ignorance of the law is no excuse.) I agree also that some orientation/training for new Councilors may be desirable, but that again is beyond our remit. As for the question of consensus, well, at Council level a vote IS representative of consensus (or lack thereof). Each SG/C has internal rules as to how their Councilors express their SG/C's views through formal voting - hence the care taken in the GNSO rules to make sure there has been adequate instruction of, e.g., a proxy replacement for a Councilor. Again, the fact that an SG/C failed in a particular instance to instruct their representative isn't sufficient basis in my view to justify a re-submission and re-vote. 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: "'Alain Berranger'" >, Jen Wolfe > CC: "Neuman, Jeff" >, "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Date: 1/15/2013 2:41 PM Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Hi all, I find myself a bit more concerned about the possible effect of such a rule on quashing motions for reconsideration. There may even be changed circumstances that might justify reconsideration and one would not want to make a rule that no motion that has previously been voted upon can be brought before the Council again. I also tend to wonder whether a Councilor, especially a newer Councilor, laboring under a misimpression about the conflict of interest rules, might not, in itself, constitute a changed circumstance. Maybe I am less critical because the Councilor in question is an IPC Councilor and also a very good lawyer. If he was confused about this, I consider it possible that anyone might be. So I tend to disagree that if the Councilor in question had been NCSG, that there would have been a uproar about the change in vote (or at least there shouldn't be in an ideal ICANN world). There is an aspect of this which for me involves "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." So it seems that if we say this is okay the way it happened, the same leniency is given going forward to any Councilor who labors under a misunderstanding of Council rules, subject perhaps to the discretion of the Chair in bringing the motion again. The harder line would be: "Dear Councilor: You are responsible for knowing all the rules before you vote and no misunderstanding on your part as to any issue can serve as a basis for resubmission of a motion." If we go this route, new Councilors should definitely be trained accordingly. Do new GNSO Councilors receive training and orientation as is the norm for most Boards? Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01CDF331.F81A6980]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 Alain Berranger Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11:26 AM To: Jen Wolfe Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Thanks Jennifer, Common sense speaks again! The black belt argument will often close a discussion, though!!!! ;-) Many involved with ICANN would likely benefit from six sigma training... including myself! Let's see what the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements Implementation I discussions will lead too. Cheers, Alain On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Jen Wolfe > wrote: Hi everyone, I hope your new year is off to a great start. I know I am new to the council and this committee so forgive me if I am misunderstanding our role, but what confused me about this particular issue was that all of the councilors had the opportunity for discussion, to ask questions and for consensus. A vote was taken and then a councilor asked further clarifying questions and then wanted to change his vote. From a strictly process standpoint, I am not clear on why a new vote should be allowed once the time for discussion and clarifying questions close. In any other parliamentary procedure, legislative body or corporate governance on boards, once a vote is taken, that?s it, even if someone misunderstood something procedurally or substantively. I fully understand the need for consensus, but once discussion closes and a vote is taken, from a process and procedural standpoint, it?s a slippery slope to start allowing votes to be re-opened because one person asked a clarifying question after the vote was taken. It not only takes up valuable time of the council in discussing new issues, but could be used inappropriately in the future if this were permissible. I look forward to participating in this committee. I have a black belt in six sigma process improvement and pride myself on finding ways to function more efficiently and hope I can provide meaningful contributions to this committee. Have a great weekend! jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB managing director, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy adivsory firm managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual property law firm IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011 & 2012 Follow Me: [cid:image002.png at 01CDF331.F81A6980] [cid:image003.png at 01CDF331.F81A6980] [cid:image004.png at 01CDF331.F81A6980] Blog: What will you do when your CEO asks why you didn?t apply for a gTLD? Book: Domain Names Rewired From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:05 PM To: Alain Berranger; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task All, I am still missing the rationale as to why the NCSG representatives believe this rule should be in place for a bottom-up consensus driven organization. Please help me understand. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: Alain Berranger [mailto:alain.berranger at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:01 PM To: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Neuman, Jeff Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task I agree fully with Mary's arguments. Best, Alain On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:16 PM, > wrote: Thanks, Jonathan and Jeff. As I won't be on the SCI call this week, my view, FWIW, is that a motion that is properly introduced, seconded and voted on should NOT be re-introduced (whether in its original form or tweaked) in the absence of clear evidence indicating fraud, duress or other similar circumstance surrounding the original introduction/seconding/vote in relation to the motion. In this regard, Councilors' ignorance of the rules (e.g. effect of an abstention), and lack of instruction/direction from a Councilor's particular constituency/SG, should NOT count as the type of circumstance that ought to permit a reintroduction or re-vote on what in substance is the same motion. 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 >>> "Jonathan Robinson" 01/10/13 1:12 AM >>> All, My understanding of the role of the SCI is to determine how improvements may be made for the future. When the motion was re-submitted to the December meeting, I do not believe that there was any procedure to guide the Council on the re-introduction of a motion that had recently been voted on. This specific issue has highlighted that we may need something to guide us on this in future. I do not believe that the SCI?s hands are tied at all. We have one useful example which raised concerns and now need to look at as general solution as possible for the future in order to cover both the example that raised the concern and other cases which may occur in future. Thanks, Jonathan 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: 09 January 2013 16:58 To: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in this specific instance: - the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on. - just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors were not aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they should be as it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a re-introduction of something that was properly introduced and voted on. - In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had given instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did not, the fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO rules, and if a constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the time to discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a motion (again, one properly introduced, seconded and voted on). - In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and referred the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion (without necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI before re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands are somewhat tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through - the mind boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and vote was improper or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive context within which ICANN is operating. 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 >>> Avri Doria > 01/09/13 2:01 PM >>> Another thought experiment. There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG Policy Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, some voters got confused and voted against. Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote? Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to just reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and perhaps even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote? A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency beleive that its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be able to have a vote rescheduled at the next meeting? avri On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote: > > Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can be reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on reconsideration in the ByLaws. > > One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that one of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case it was the Chair who had been on the losing side. > > We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done. > > avri > > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote: > >> I tend to agree, >> >> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne >; >> To: 'Avri Doria' >; Jeff Neuman >; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >; >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson >; >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM >> >> >> Hi all, >> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" type inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going to discuss tomorrow. > > the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated. > >> >> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can provide prior to our call. > > It is all in the g-counci Procedures. > And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions already made. > > >> >> 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 the original message. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM >> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I guess I do not support that. >> >> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should have past. >> >> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. >> >> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. >> >> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an NCUC based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go her way. >> >> avri >> >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >> >>> >>> Avri, >>> >>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did not happen. >>> >>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>> >>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time >>> To: Neuman, Jeff >>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that is not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion has passed or not. >>> >>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the reality of the situation. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on consensus. >>>> >>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a second measurement of consensus is not an issue. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>>> >>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: >>>> >>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two remedies were possible. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and accountability. >>>> >>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------- >> 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 >> > -- 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. -- 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: -------------- 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: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 484 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: image004.png URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Tue Jan 15 22:16:30 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 17:16:30 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear all, As I follow the debate it is becoming more apparent to me that both sides appear to be right. Both arguments have merit. On the one hand, consensus development is the goal of ICANN and so arriving at consensus should always be the guiding principle. On the other, there are numerous examples of when votes are cast that decision is final - and therefore no chance of a ?do over?. As we, ourselves, need to find full consensus on the issues that come before the SCI to fulfill our mandate, I would like to change the course of the discussion from what appears to be a deepening divide to a discussion that could provide a ?win? for both sides of the current debate. What is going through my mind is the following question: Rather than argue whether a motion can be voted on twice, or re-voted, as it were, would it be possible/make sense to bring a reformulated motion back for vote at the following GNSO Council meeting? A ?reformulated motion? is one that achieves the same result, but it is not the same motion. This concept may or may not make sense, but the goal of my suggestion is to see how we can come together to achieve what both sides of the current debate are looking for ? consensus without a ?slippery slope? solution. Again, in order to fulfill our task, we must find full consensus within the SCI and the direction we are going with the discussion on the list appears to be taking us away from that goal. What are your thoughts on this concept? 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 Alain Berranger Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 1:26 PM To: Jen Wolfe Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Thanks Jennifer, Common sense speaks again! The black belt argument will often close a discussion, though!!!! ;-) Many involved with ICANN would likely benefit from six sigma training... including myself! Let's see what the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements Implementation I discussions will lead too. Cheers, Alain On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Jen Wolfe wrote: Hi everyone, I hope your new year is off to a great start. I know I am new to the council and this committee so forgive me if I am misunderstanding our role, but what confused me about this particular issue was that all of the councilors had the opportunity for discussion, to ask questions and for consensus. A vote was taken and then a councilor asked further clarifying questions and then wanted to change his vote. From a strictly process standpoint, I am not clear on why a new vote should be allowed once the time for discussion and clarifying questions close. In any other parliamentary procedure, legislative body or corporate governance on boards, once a vote is taken, that?s it, even if someone misunderstood something procedurally or substantively. I fully understand the need for consensus, but once discussion closes and a vote is taken, from a process and procedural standpoint, it?s a slippery slope to start allowing votes to be re-opened because one person asked a clarifying question after the vote was taken. It not only takes up valuable time of the council in discussing new issues, but could be used inappropriately in the future if this were permissible. I look forward to participating in this committee. I have a black belt in six sigma process improvement and pride myself on finding ways to function more efficiently and hope I can provide meaningful contributions to this committee. Have a great weekend! jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB managing director, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy adivsory firm managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual property law firm IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011 & 2012 Follow Me: Description: Description: cid:image001.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0 Description: Description: cid:image002.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0 Description: Description: cid:image003.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0 Blog: What will you do when your CEO asks why you didn?t apply for a gTLD? Book: Domain Names Rewired From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:05 PM To: Alain Berranger; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task All, I am still missing the rationale as to why the NCSG representatives believe this rule should be in place for a bottom-up consensus driven organization. Please help me understand. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: Alain Berranger [mailto:alain.berranger at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:01 PM To: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Neuman, Jeff Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task I agree fully with Mary's arguments. Best, Alain On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:16 PM, wrote: Thanks, Jonathan and Jeff. As I won't be on the SCI call this week, my view, FWIW, is that a motion that is properly introduced, seconded and voted on should NOT be re-introduced (whether in its original form or tweaked) in the absence of clear evidence indicating fraud, duress or other similar circumstance surrounding the original introduction/seconding/vote in relation to the motion. In this regard, Councilors' ignorance of the rules (e.g. effect of an abstention), and lack of instruction/direction from a Councilor's particular constituency/SG, should NOT count as the type of circumstance that ought to permit a reintroduction or re-vote on what in substance is the same motion. 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 >>> "Jonathan Robinson" 01/10/13 1:12 AM >>> All, My understanding of the role of the SCI is to determine how improvements may be made for the future. When the motion was re-submitted to the December meeting, I do not believe that there was any procedure to guide the Council on the re-introduction of a motion that had recently been voted on. This specific issue has highlighted that we may need something to guide us on this in future. I do not believe that the SCI?s hands are tied at all. We have one useful example which raised concerns and now need to look at as general solution as possible for the future in order to cover both the example that raised the concern and other cases which may occur in future. Thanks, Jonathan 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: 09 January 2013 16:58 To: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in this specific instance: - the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on. - just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors were not aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they should be as it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a re-introduction of something that was properly introduced and voted on. - In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had given instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did not, the fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO rules, and if a constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the time to discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a motion (again, one properly introduced, seconded and voted on). - In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and referred the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion (without necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI before re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands are somewhat tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through - the mind boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and vote was improper or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive context within which ICANN is operating. 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 >>> Avri Doria 01/09/13 2:01 PM >>> Another thought experiment. There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG Policy Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, some voters got confused and voted against. Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote? Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to just reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and perhaps even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote? A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency beleive that its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be able to have a vote rescheduled at the next meeting? avri On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote: > > Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can be reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on reconsideration in the ByLaws. > > One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that one of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case it was the Chair who had been on the losing side. > > We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done. > > avri > > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote: > >> I tend to agree, >> >> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; >> To: 'Avri Doria' ; Jeff Neuman ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson ; >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM >> >> >> Hi all, >> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" type inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going to discuss tomorrow. > > the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated. > >> >> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can provide prior to our call. > > It is all in the g-counci Procedures. > And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions already made. > > >> >> 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 the original message. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM >> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I guess I do not support that. >> >> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should have past. >> >> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. >> >> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. >> >> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an NCUC based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go her way. >> >> avri >> >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >> >>> >>> Avri, >>> >>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did not happen. >>> >>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>> >>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time >>> To: Neuman, Jeff >>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that is not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion has passed or not. >>> >>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the reality of the situation. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on consensus. >>>> >>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a second measurement of consensus is not an issue. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>>> >>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: >>>> >>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two remedies were possible. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and accountability. >>>> >>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------- >> 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 >> > -- 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. -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 141 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 165 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.gif Type: image/gif Size: 152 bytes Desc: not available URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Tue Jan 15 22:23:26 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 17:23:26 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task - Councilor Training In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9602BB231@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Dear all, I think that the concept of providing a new councilor primer is an excellent idea and one that we should give more thought to. Indeed, if all new Councilors are provided with a briefing on their mandate, documents that they should review, etc. that would serve the ICANN community and its various constituencies well. Moreover, a neutral presentation of roles/responsibilities and what is expected of them, may go further to assist new councilors in learning how to find consensus. Something we can all agree has been lacking in the trench warfare that we have seen in Council over the years. Thanks to Jennifer and Anne for bringing this idea forward. Let?s explore this further. 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 Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 2:41 PM To: 'Alain Berranger'; Jen Wolfe Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Hi all, I find myself a bit more concerned about the possible effect of such a rule on quashing motions for reconsideration. There may even be changed circumstances that might justify reconsideration and one would not want to make a rule that no motion that has previously been voted upon can be brought before the Council again. I also tend to wonder whether a Councilor, especially a newer Councilor, laboring under a misimpression about the conflict of interest rules, might not, in itself, constitute a changed circumstance. Maybe I am less critical because the Councilor in question is an IPC Councilor and also a very good lawyer. If he was confused about this, I consider it possible that anyone might be. So I tend to disagree that if the Councilor in question had been NCSG, that there would have been a uproar about the change in vote (or at least there shouldn't be in an ideal ICANN world). There is an aspect of this which for me involves "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." So it seems that if we say this is okay the way it happened, the same leniency is given going forward to any Councilor who labors under a misunderstanding of Council rules, subject perhaps to the discretion of the Chair in bringing the motion again. The harder line would be: "Dear Councilor: You are responsible for knowing all the rules before you vote and no misunderstanding on your part as to any issue can serve as a basis for resubmission of a motion." If we go this route, new Councilors should definitely be trained accordingly. Do new GNSO Councilors receive training and orientation as is the norm for most Boards? Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700 One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 ? Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. _____ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alain Berranger Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11:26 AM To: Jen Wolfe Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Thanks Jennifer, Common sense speaks again! The black belt argument will often close a discussion, though!!!! ;-) Many involved with ICANN would likely benefit from six sigma training... including myself! Let's see what the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements Implementation I discussions will lead too. Cheers, Alain On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Jen Wolfe wrote: Hi everyone, I hope your new year is off to a great start. I know I am new to the council and this committee so forgive me if I am misunderstanding our role, but what confused me about this particular issue was that all of the councilors had the opportunity for discussion, to ask questions and for consensus. A vote was taken and then a councilor asked further clarifying questions and then wanted to change his vote. From a strictly process standpoint, I am not clear on why a new vote should be allowed once the time for discussion and clarifying questions close. In any other parliamentary procedure, legislative body or corporate governance on boards, once a vote is taken, that?s it, even if someone misunderstood something procedurally or substantively. I fully understand the need for consensus, but once discussion closes and a vote is taken, from a process and procedural standpoint, it?s a slippery slope to start allowing votes to be re-opened because one person asked a clarifying question after the vote was taken. It not only takes up valuable time of the council in discussing new issues, but could be used inappropriately in the future if this were permissible. I look forward to participating in this committee. I have a black belt in six sigma process improvement and pride myself on finding ways to function more efficiently and hope I can provide meaningful contributions to this committee. Have a great weekend! jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB managing director, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy adivsory firm managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual property law firm IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011 & 2012 Follow Me: Description: Description: cid:image001.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0 Description: Description: cid:image002.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0 Description: Description: cid:image003.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0 Blog: What will you do when your CEO asks why you didn?t apply for a gTLD? Book: Domain Names Rewired From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:05 PM To: Alain Berranger; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task All, I am still missing the rationale as to why the NCSG representatives believe this rule should be in place for a bottom-up consensus driven organization. Please help me understand. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: Alain Berranger [mailto:alain.berranger at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:01 PM To: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Neuman, Jeff Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task I agree fully with Mary's arguments. Best, Alain On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:16 PM, wrote: Thanks, Jonathan and Jeff. As I won't be on the SCI call this week, my view, FWIW, is that a motion that is properly introduced, seconded and voted on should NOT be re-introduced (whether in its original form or tweaked) in the absence of clear evidence indicating fraud, duress or other similar circumstance surrounding the original introduction/seconding/vote in relation to the motion. In this regard, Councilors' ignorance of the rules (e.g. effect of an abstention), and lack of instruction/direction from a Councilor's particular constituency/SG, should NOT count as the type of circumstance that ought to permit a reintroduction or re-vote on what in substance is the same motion. 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 >>> "Jonathan Robinson" 01/10/13 1:12 AM >>> All, My understanding of the role of the SCI is to determine how improvements may be made for the future. When the motion was re-submitted to the December meeting, I do not believe that there was any procedure to guide the Council on the re-introduction of a motion that had recently been voted on. This specific issue has highlighted that we may need something to guide us on this in future. I do not believe that the SCI?s hands are tied at all. We have one useful example which raised concerns and now need to look at as general solution as possible for the future in order to cover both the example that raised the concern and other cases which may occur in future. Thanks, Jonathan 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: 09 January 2013 16:58 To: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in this specific instance: - the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on. - just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors were not aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they should be as it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a re-introduction of something that was properly introduced and voted on. - In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had given instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did not, the fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO rules, and if a constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the time to discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a motion (again, one properly introduced, seconded and voted on). - In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and referred the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion (without necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI before re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands are somewhat tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through - the mind boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and vote was improper or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive context within which ICANN is operating. 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 >>> Avri Doria 01/09/13 2:01 PM >>> Another thought experiment. There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG Policy Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, some voters got confused and voted against. Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote? Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to just reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and perhaps even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote? A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency beleive that its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be able to have a vote rescheduled at the next meeting? avri On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote: > > Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can be reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on reconsideration in the ByLaws. > > One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that one of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case it was the Chair who had been on the losing side. > > We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done. > > avri > > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote: > >> I tend to agree, >> >> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; >> To: 'Avri Doria' ; Jeff Neuman ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson ; >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM >> >> >> Hi all, >> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" type inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going to discuss tomorrow. > > the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated. > >> >> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can provide prior to our call. > > It is all in the g-counci Procedures. > And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions already made. > > >> >> 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 the original message. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM >> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I guess I do not support that. >> >> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should have past. >> >> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. >> >> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. >> >> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an NCUC based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go her way. >> >> avri >> >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >> >>> >>> Avri, >>> >>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did not happen. >>> >>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>> >>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time >>> To: Neuman, Jeff >>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that is not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion has passed or not. >>> >>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the reality of the situation. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on consensus. >>>> >>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a second measurement of consensus is not an issue. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>>> >>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: >>>> >>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two remedies were possible. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and accountability. >>>> >>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------- >> 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 >> > -- 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. -- 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: -------------- 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: image005.gif Type: image/gif Size: 141 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.gif Type: image/gif Size: 165 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.gif Type: image/gif Size: 152 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jscottevans at yahoo.com Tue Jan 15 22:37:51 2013 From: jscottevans at yahoo.com (J. Scott Evans) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:37:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1358289471.74691.YahooMailNeo@web161006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> All: I guess I am worried about the old maxim: ?"Bad facts make bad law." ?In its 10 plus years existence, the GNSO has only faced this issue once. ?It seems to me that this should be left to the Chair's discretion, similar to the granting of deferrals. ?This is in line with our "light touch" approach and gives the GNSO some flexibility. J. Scott ? j. scott evans - ?head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com ________________________________ From: Ron Andruff To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 2:16 PM Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Dear all, ? As I follow the debate it is becoming more apparent to me that both sides appear to be right. ?Both arguments have merit.? On the one hand, consensus development is the goal of ICANN and so arriving at consensus should always be the guiding principle. ?On the other, there are numerous examples of when votes are cast that decision is final - and therefore no chance of a ?do over?. ?As we, ourselves, need to find full consensus on the issues that come before the SCI to fulfill our mandate, I would like to change the course of the discussion from what appears to be a deepening divide to a discussion that could provide a ?win? for both sides of the current debate.? ? What is going through my mind is the following question: Rather than argue whether a motion can be voted on twice, or re-voted, as it were, would it be possible/make sense to bring a reformulated motion back for vote at the following GNSO Council meeting?? A ?reformulated motion? is one that achieves the same result, but it is not the same motion. ?This concept may or may not make sense, but the goal of my suggestion is to see how we can come together to achieve what both sides of the current debate are looking for ? consensus without a ?slippery slope? solution.? Again, in order to fulfill our task, we must find full consensus within the SCI and the direction we are going with the discussion on the list appears to be taking us away from that goal. ? What are your thoughts on this concept? ? 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 Alain Berranger Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 1:26 PM To: Jen Wolfe Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task ? Thanks Jennifer, ? Common sense speaks again! The black belt argument will often close a discussion, though!!!! ;-) Many involved with ICANN would likely benefit from six sigma training... including myself! ? Let's see what the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements Implementation I discussions will lead too. ? Cheers, Alain ? On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Jen Wolfe wrote: Hi everyone, ? I hope your new year is? off to a great start.? I know I am new to the council and this committee so forgive me if I am misunderstanding our role, but what confused me about this particular issue was that all of the councilors had the opportunity for discussion, to ask questions and for consensus.? A vote was taken and then a councilor asked further clarifying questions and then wanted to change his vote.? From a strictly process standpoint, I am not clear on why a new vote should be allowed once the time for discussion and clarifying questions close.? In any other parliamentary procedure, legislative body or corporate governance on boards, once a vote is taken, that?s it, even if someone misunderstood something procedurally or substantively. ? I fully understand the need for consensus, but once discussion closes and a vote is taken, from a process and procedural standpoint, it?s a slippery slope to start allowing votes to be re-opened because one person asked a clarifying question after the vote was taken.? It not only takes up valuable time of the council in discussing new issues, but could be used inappropriately in the future if this were permissible.? ? I look forward to participating in this committee.? I have a black belt in six sigma process improvement and pride myself on finding ways to function more efficiently and hope I can provide meaningful contributions to this committee.? ? Have a great weekend! ? jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB managing director, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy adivsory firm managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual property law firm IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011 & 2012 Follow Me:??? Blog:?What will you do when your CEO asks why you didn?t apply for a gTLD? Book:?Domain Names Rewired ? ? From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:05 PM To: Alain Berranger; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task ? All, ? I am still missing the rationale as to why the NCSG representatives believe this rule should be in place for a bottom-up consensus driven organization. ? ? Please help me understand. ? Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs ? From:Alain Berranger [mailto:alain.berranger at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:01 PM To: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Neuman, Jeff Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task ? ? I agree fully with Mary's arguments. ? Best, Alain On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:16 PM, wrote: Thanks, Jonathan and Jeff. As I won't be on the SCI call this week, my view, FWIW, is that a motion that is properly introduced, seconded and voted on should NOT be re-introduced (whether in its original form or tweaked) in the absence of clear evidence indicating fraud, duress or other similar circumstance surrounding the original introduction/seconding/vote in relation to the motion. In this regard, Councilors' ignorance of the rules (e.g. effect of an abstention), and lack of instruction/direction from a Councilor's particular constituency/SG, should NOT count as the type of circumstance that ought to permit a reintroduction or re-vote on what in substance is the same motion. 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 ? >>> "Jonathan Robinson" 01/10/13 1:12 AM >>> All, ? My understanding of the role of the SCI is to determine how improvements may be made for the future. ? When the motion was re-submitted to the December meeting, I do not believe that there was any procedure to guide the Council on the re-introduction of a motion that had recently been voted on. ? This specific issue has highlighted that we may need something to guide us on this in future.? I do not believe that the SCI?s hands are tied at all. ? We have one useful example which raised concerns and now need to look at? as general solution as possible for the future in order to cover both the example that raised the concern and other cases which may occur in future. ? Thanks, ? ? Jonathan ? 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: 09 January 2013 16:58 To: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task ? I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in this specific instance: - the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on. - just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors were not aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they should be as it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a re-introduction of something that was properly introduced and voted on. - In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had given instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did not, the fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO rules, and if a constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the time to discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a motion (again, one properly introduced, seconded and voted on). - In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and referred the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion (without necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI before re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands are somewhat tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through - the mind boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and vote was improper or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive context within which ICANN is operating. 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 >>> Avri Doria 01/09/13 2:01 PM >>> Another thought experiment. There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG Policy Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, some voters got confused and voted against. Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote? Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to just reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and perhaps even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote? A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency beleive that its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be able to have a vote rescheduled at the next meeting? avri On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote: > > Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can be reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on reconsideration in the ByLaws. > > One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that one of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case it was the Chair who had been on the losing side. > > We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done. > > avri > > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote: > >> I tend to agree, >> >> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; >> To: 'Avri Doria' ; Jeff Neuman ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson ; >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM >> >> >> Hi all, >> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" type inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going to discuss tomorrow. > > the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated. > >> >> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can provide prior to our call. > > It is all in the g-counci Procedures. > And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions already made. > > >> >> 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 the original message. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM >> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I guess I do not support that. >> >> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should have past. >> >> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. >> >> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. >> >> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an NCUC based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go her way. >> >> avri >> >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >> >>> >>> Avri, >>> >>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did not happen. >>> >>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>> >>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time >>> To: Neuman, Jeff >>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that is not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion has passed or not. >>> >>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the reality of the situation. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on consensus. >>>> >>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a second measurement of consensus is not an issue. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>>> >>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: >>>> >>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two remedies were possible. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and accountability. >>>> >>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore would have been President of the US . and yes, we may wish with all our hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------- >> 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 >> > ? -- 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. ? ? -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 141 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 165 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.gif Type: image/gif Size: 152 bytes Desc: not available URL: From marika.konings at icann.org Wed Jan 16 08:33:58 2013 From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 00:33:58 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task - Councilor Training In-Reply-To: Message-ID: All, in relation to this discussion, it may be worth sharing with you the following message from Rob Hoggarth that was sent to the GNSO Council mailing list on 26 October following a relatively similar discussion: ==================== Dear Jonathan, Maria and Wolf-Ulrich; In view of your recent dialogue about Councilor learning curves and induction materials, I wanted to advise the Council that as part of "Phase 2" of the updated GNSO.icann.org website, staff is currently developing introductory materials to use as a standing resource for councilors and community members on a variety of introductory "basic" topics such as GNSO Working Group formation and operations, PDP procedures, communications tools and guides for new councilors and working group chairs. We are working to leverage existing materials including some that Glen currently gathers and shares when new Councilors come on board. The materials will ultimately find a home on the "Basics" tab of the GNSO web site - http://newgnso.icann.org/en/basics/getting-started. We will alert you all as those materials are added to the site. On the horizon we envision developing other materials for the page on particular topics like a "DNS 101 Guide". We would welcome suggestions about additional topics and subjects that any of you think might be of value as a future addition to the Basics Tab as either a refresher or introduction to a particular matter for interested community members. In the meantime, I hope the currently structured Active Projects/Groups/Teams page (http://newgnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active-groups.htm) and the document linked to the Pending Projects List page (http://newgnso.icann.org/en/ongoing-work/pending-projects-list.htm ) of the GNSO web site will provide some useful status, background and context information regarding the full range of current GNSO Council matters, issues and topics of interest. Best regards, Rob Hoggarth ==================== I'm sure Rob would also gladly consider any suggestions the SCI may have in addition to the introductory topics already outlined in his email. With best regards, Marika From: Ron Andruff Organization: RNA Partners Date: Tuesday 15 January 2013 23:23 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task - Councilor Training Dear all, I think that the concept of providing a new councilor primer is an excellent idea and one that we should give more thought to. Indeed, if all new Councilors are provided with a briefing on their mandate, documents that they should review, etc. that would serve the ICANN community and its various constituencies well. Moreover, a neutral presentation of roles/responsibilities and what is expected of them, may go further to assist new councilors in learning how to find consensus. Something we can all agree has been lacking in the trench warfare that we have seen in Council over the years. Thanks to Jennifer and Anne for bringing this idea forward. Let?s explore this further. 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 Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 2:41 PM To: 'Alain Berranger'; Jen Wolfe Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Hi all, I find myself a bit more concerned about the possible effect of such a rule on quashing motions for reconsideration. There may even be changed circumstances that might justify reconsideration and one would not want to make a rule that no motion that has previously been voted upon can be brought before the Council again. I also tend to wonder whether a Councilor, especially a newer Councilor, laboring under a misimpression about the conflict of interest rules, might not, in itself, constitute a changed circumstance. Maybe I am less critical because the Councilor in question is an IPC Councilor and also a very good lawyer. If he was confused about this, I consider it possible that anyone might be. So I tend to disagree that if the Councilor in question had been NCSG, that there would have been a uproar about the change in vote (or at least there shouldn't be in an ideal ICANN world). There is an aspect of this which for me involves "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." So it seems that if we say this is okay the way it happened, the same leniency is given going forward to any Councilor who labors under a misunderstanding of Council rules, subject perhaps to the discretion of the Chair in bringing the motion again. The harder line would be: "Dear Councilor: You are responsible for knowing all the rules before you vote and no misunderstanding on your part as to any issue can serve as a basis for resubmission of a motion." If we go this route, new Councilors should definitely be trained accordingly. Do new GNSO Councilors receive training and orientation as is the norm for most Boards? Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700 One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 ? Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alain Berranger Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11:26 AM To: Jen Wolfe Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Thanks Jennifer, Common sense speaks again! The black belt argument will often close a discussion, though!!!! ;-) Many involved with ICANN would likely benefit from six sigma training... including myself! Let's see what the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements Implementation I discussions will lead too. Cheers, Alain On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Jen Wolfe wrote: Hi everyone, I hope your new year is off to a great start. I know I am new to the council and this committee so forgive me if I am misunderstanding our role, but what confused me about this particular issue was that all of the councilors had the opportunity for discussion, to ask questions and for consensus. A vote was taken and then a councilor asked further clarifying questions and then wanted to change his vote. From a strictly process standpoint, I am not clear on why a new vote should be allowed once the time for discussion and clarifying questions close. In any other parliamentary procedure, legislative body or corporate governance on boards, once a vote is taken, that?s it, even if someone misunderstood something procedurally or substantively. I fully understand the need for consensus, but once discussion closes and a vote is taken, from a process and procedural standpoint, it?s a slippery slope to start allowing votes to be re-opened because one person asked a clarifying question after the vote was taken. It not only takes up valuable time of the council in discussing new issues, but could be used inappropriately in the future if this were permissible. I look forward to participating in this committee. I have a black belt in six sigma process improvement and pride myself on finding ways to function more efficiently and hope I can provide meaningful contributions to this committee. Have a great weekend! jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB managing director, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy adivsory firm managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual property law firm IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011 & 2012 Follow Me: Blog: What will you do when your CEO asks why you didn?t apply for a gTLD? Book: Domain Names Rewired From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:05 PM To: Alain Berranger; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task All, I am still missing the rationale as to why the NCSG representatives believe this rule should be in place for a bottom-up consensus driven organization. Please help me understand. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: Alain Berranger [mailto:alain.berranger at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:01 PM To: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Neuman, Jeff Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task I agree fully with Mary's arguments. Best, Alain On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:16 PM, wrote: Thanks, Jonathan and Jeff. As I won't be on the SCI call this week, my view, FWIW, is that a motion that is properly introduced, seconded and voted on should NOT be re-introduced (whether in its original form or tweaked) in the absence of clear evidence indicating fraud, duress or other similar circumstance surrounding the original introduction/seconding/vote in relation to the motion. In this regard, Councilors' ignorance of the rules (e.g. effect of an abstention), and lack of instruction/direction from a Councilor's particular constituency/SG, should NOT count as the type of circumstance that ought to permit a reintroduction or re-vote on what in substance is the same motion. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRESCHOOL 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 >>> "Jonathan Robinson" 01/10/13 1:12 AM >>> All, My understanding of the role of the SCI is to determine how improvements may be made for the future. When the motion was re-submitted to the December meeting, I do not believe that there was any procedure to guide the Council on the re-introduction of a motion that had recently been voted on. This specific issue has highlighted that we may need something to guide us on this in future. I do not believe that the SCI?s hands are tied at all. We have one useful example which raised concerns and now need to look at as general solution as possible for the future in order to cover both the example that raised the concern and other cases which may occur in future. Thanks, Jonathan 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: 09 January 2013 16:58 To: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in this specific instance: - the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on. - just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors were not aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they should be as it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a re-introduction of something that was properly introduced and voted on. - In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had given instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did not, the fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO rules, and if a constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the time to discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a motion (again, one properly introduced, seconded and voted on). - In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and referred the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion (without necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI before re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands are somewhat tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through - the mind boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and vote was improper or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive context within which ICANN is operating. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRESCHOOL 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 >>> Avri Doria 01/09/13 2:01 PM >>> Another thought experiment. There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG Policy Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, some voters got confused and voted against. Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote? Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to just reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and perhaps even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote? A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency beleive that its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be able to have a vote rescheduled at the next meeting? avri On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote: > > Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can be reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on reconsideration in the ByLaws. > > One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that one of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case it was the Chair who had been on the losing side. > > We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done. > > avri > > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote: > >> I tend to agree, >> >> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; >> To: 'Avri Doria' ; Jeff Neuman ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson ; >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM >> >> >> Hi all, >> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" type inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going to discuss tomorrow. > > the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated. > >> >> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can provide prior to our call. > > It is all in the g-counci Procedures. > And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions already made. > > >> >> 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 the original message. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM >> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I guess I do not support that. >> >> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should have past. >> >> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. >> >> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. >> >> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an NCUC based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go her way. >> >> avri >> >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >> >>> >>> Avri, >>> >>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did not happen. >>> >>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>> >>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time >>> To: Neuman, Jeff >>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that is not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion has passed or not. >>> >>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the reality of the situation. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on consensus. >>>> >>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a second measurement of consensus is not an issue. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>>> >>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: >>>> >>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two remedies were possible. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and accountability. >>>> >>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------- >> 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 >> > -- 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. -- 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: -------------- 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: image005.gif Type: image/gif Size: 141 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.gif Type: image/gif Size: 165 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.gif Type: image/gif Size: 152 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 alain.berranger at gmail.com Wed Jan 16 21:04:25 2013 From: alain.berranger at gmail.com (Alain Berranger) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:04:25 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9602BB231@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> References: <50ED5F8E0200005B0009F54D@smtp.law.unh.edu> <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3E0103EC38E9@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com> <926FFC092954C2419CE5D66B8B3DFD47504FEF07@SN2PRD0610MB395.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9602BB231@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Hi, in my opinion motions should be reconsidered if there is some passage of time and reasonably significant (not a minor) change in either environment or content. Despite the brillant arguments made below, confusion of the voter cannot really be qualified as a significant change in either environment or content. I do not dispute the extraordinary skills and experience of the Councilor in question here neither - I have deep respect for this Councilor. Maybe it was a simple snafu? Who can claim to not have run into one of those at some point or the other in their professional or personal lifes? Not me! Alain On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > ** > Hi all, > I find myself a bit more concerned about the possible effect of such a > rule on quashing motions for reconsideration. There may even be changed > circumstances that might justify reconsideration and one would not want to > make a rule that no motion that has previously been voted upon can be > brought before the Council again. > > I also tend to wonder whether a Councilor, especially a newer Councilor, > laboring under a misimpression about the conflict of interest rules, might > not, in itself, constitute a changed circumstance. Maybe I am less > critical because the Councilor in question is an IPC Councilor and also a > very good lawyer. If he was confused about this, I consider it possible > that anyone might be. So I tend to disagree that if the Councilor in > question had been NCSG, that there would have been a uproar about the > change in vote (or at least there shouldn't be in an ideal ICANN world). > > There is an aspect of this which for me involves "Do unto others as you > would have others do unto you." So it seems that if we say this is okay > the way it happened, the same leniency is given going forward to any > Councilor who labors under a misunderstanding of Council rules, subject > perhaps to the discretion of the Chair in bringing the motion again. > > The harder line would be: "Dear Councilor: You are responsible for > knowing all the rules before you vote and no misunderstanding on your > part as to any issue can serve as a basis for resubmission of a motion." > If we go this route, new Councilors should definitely be trained > accordingly. Do new GNSO Councilors receive training and orientation as is > the norm for most Boards? > Anne > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese > > Of Counsel > Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700 > One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > Tel (520) 629-4428 ? Fax (520) 879-4725 > AAikman at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman > * > > ** > > *P **Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.* > * > > This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information > intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. > If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the > agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are > hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or > copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication > was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original > message. > * > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Alain Berranger > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11:26 AM > *To:* Jen Wolfe > *Cc:* Neuman, Jeff; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > Thanks Jennifer, > > Common sense speaks again! The black belt argument will often close a > discussion, though!!!! ;-) Many involved with ICANN would likely benefit > from six sigma training... including myself! > > Let's see what the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements > Implementation I discussions will lead too. > > Cheers, Alain > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Jen Wolfe wrote: > >> Hi everyone,**** >> >> **** >> >> I hope your new year is off to a great start. I know I am new to the >> council and this committee so forgive me if I am misunderstanding our role, >> but what confused me about this particular issue was that all of the >> councilors had the opportunity for discussion, to ask questions and for >> consensus. A vote was taken and then a councilor asked further clarifying >> questions and then wanted to change his vote. From a strictly process >> standpoint, I am not clear on why a new vote should be allowed once the >> time for discussion and clarifying questions close. In any other >> parliamentary procedure, legislative body or corporate governance on >> boards, once a vote is taken, that?s it, even if someone misunderstood >> something procedurally or substantively. **** >> >> **** >> >> I fully understand the need for consensus, but once discussion closes and >> a vote is taken, from a process and procedural standpoint, it?s a slippery >> slope to start allowing votes to be re-opened because one person asked a >> clarifying question after the vote was taken. It not only takes up >> valuable time of the council in discussing new issues, but could be used >> inappropriately in the future if this were permissible. **** >> >> **** >> >> I look forward to participating in this committee. I have a black belt >> in six sigma process improvement and pride myself on finding ways to >> function more efficiently and hope I can provide meaningful contributions >> to this committee. * *** >> >> **** >> >> Have a great weekend!**** >> >> **** >> >> *jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB* >> >> managing director, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy adivsory firm** >> ** >> >> managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual >> property law firm**** >> >> *IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011 & 2012* >> >> *Follow Me:** **[image: Description: Description: >> cid:image001.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0]* >> * **[image: Description: Description: cid:image002.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] >> * * **[image: Description: >> Description: cid:image003.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0]* >> * >> **Blog:** **What will you do when your CEO asks why you didn?t apply for >> a gTLD?* ** >> >> *Book:** **Domain Names Rewired* >> ** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> *From:* owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto: >> owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Neuman, Jeff >> *Sent:* Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:05 PM >> *To:* Alain Berranger; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu >> *Cc:* avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> >> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task**** >> >> **** >> >> All,**** >> >> **** >> >> I am still missing the rationale as to why the NCSG representatives >> believe this rule should be in place for a bottom-up consensus driven >> organization. **** >> >> **** >> >> Please help me understand.**** >> >> **** >> >> *Jeffrey J. Neuman** >> **Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs***** >> >> **** >> >> *From:* Alain Berranger [mailto:alain.berranger at gmail.com] >> >> *Sent:* Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:01 PM >> *To:* Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu >> *Cc:* avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; >> jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Neuman, Jeff >> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task**** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> I agree fully with Mary's arguments.**** >> >> **** >> >> Best, Alain**** >> >> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:16 PM, wrote:**** >> >> Thanks, Jonathan and Jeff. As I won't be on the SCI call this week, my >> view, FWIW, is that a motion that is properly introduced, seconded and >> voted on should NOT be re-introduced (whether in its original form or >> tweaked) in the absence of clear evidence indicating fraud, duress or other >> similar circumstance surrounding the original introduction/seconding/vote >> in relation to the motion. In this regard, Councilors' ignorance of the >> rules (e.g. effect of an abstention), and lack of instruction/direction >> from a Councilor's particular constituency/SG, should NOT count as the type >> of circumstance that ought to permit a reintroduction or re-vote on what in >> substance is the same motion.**** >> >> >> >> 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 **** >> >> **** >> >> >>> "Jonathan Robinson" 01/10/13 1:12 AM >>>**** >> >> All,**** >> >> **** >> >> My understanding of the role of the SCI is to determine how improvements >> may be made for the future.**** >> >> **** >> >> When the motion was re-submitted to the December meeting, I do not >> believe that there was any procedure to guide the Council on the >> re-introduction of a motion that had recently been voted on.**** >> >> **** >> >> This specific issue has highlighted that we may need something to guide >> us on this in future. I do not believe that the SCI?s hands are tied at >> all.**** >> >> **** >> >> We have one useful example which raised concerns and now need to look at >> as general solution as possible for the future in order to cover both the >> example that raised the concern and other cases which may occur in future. >> **** >> >> **** >> >> Thanks,**** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> Jonathan**** >> >> **** >> >> *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:* 09 January 2013 16:58 >> *To:* avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> *Cc:* jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us >> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task**** >> >> **** >> >> I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in this >> specific instance: >> >> - the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on. >> >> - just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors >> were not aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they >> should be as it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a >> re-introduction of something that was properly introduced and voted on. >> >> - In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had >> given instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did >> not, the fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO >> rules, and if a constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the >> time to discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a >> motion (again, one properly introduced, seconded and voted on). >> >> - In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and >> referred the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion >> (without necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI >> before re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands >> are somewhat tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through >> - the mind boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and >> vote was improper or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive >> context within which ICANN is operating. >> >> 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 **** >> >> >> >>> Avri Doria 01/09/13 2:01 PM >>> >> >> Another thought experiment. >> >> There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG Policy >> Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, >> some voters got confused and voted against. >> >> Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote? >> >> Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to >> just reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and >> perhaps even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote? >> >> A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency >> beleive that its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be >> able to have a vote rescheduled at the next meeting? >> >> avri >> >> >> On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> > >> > Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can be >> reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on >> reconsideration in the ByLaws. >> > >> > One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that one >> of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case >> it was the Chair who had been on the losing side. >> > >> > We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done. >> > >> > avri >> > >> > >> > >> > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote: >> > >> >> I tend to agree, >> >> >> >> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; >> >> To: 'Avri Doria' ; Jeff Neuman ; >> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; >> >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson ; >> >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" >> type inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would >> permit a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter >> how obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are >> going to discuss tomorrow. >> > >> > the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated. >> > >> >> >> >> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO >> Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can >> provide prior to our call. >> > >> > It is all in the g-counci Procedures. >> > And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions >> already made. >> > >> > >> >> >> >> 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 the >> original message. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [ >> mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >> On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM >> >> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson >> >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I guess I do not support that. >> >> >> >> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it >> back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should >> have past. >> >> >> >> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for >> motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has >> NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of >> the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. >> >> >> >> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should >> never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair >> from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination >> of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. >> >> >> >> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an >> NCUC based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did >> not go her way. >> >> >> >> avri >> >> >> >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >> >> >> >>> >> >>> Avri, >> >>> >> >>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the >> spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two >> votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some >> evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did >> not happen. >> >>> >> >>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence >> of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. >> >>> >> >>> Best regards, >> >>> >> >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >> >>> >> >>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com ] >> >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time >> >>> To: Neuman, Jeff >> >>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson >> >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >>> >> >>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that >> is not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the >> SG at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the >> Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure >> that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a >> motion has passed or not. >> >>> >> >>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the >> reality of the situation. >> >>> >> >>> avri >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed >> to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on >> items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given >> policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group >> making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last >> evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as >> supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over >> again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on >> consensus. >> >>>> >> >>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the >> result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that >> ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to >> be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and >> unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse >> within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence >> that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, >> harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a >> second measurement of consensus is not an issue. >> >>>> >> >>>> Best regards, >> >>>> >> >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >> >>>> >> >>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -----Original Message----- >> >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com ] >> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time >> >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> >>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff >> >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to >> vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), >> two remedies were possible. >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when >> it is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency >> and accountability. >> >>>> >> >>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to >> make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my >> stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they >> should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If >> it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida >> was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore >> would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our >> hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work >> according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. >> >>>> >> >>>> avri >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------- >> >> 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 >> >> >> > **** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> -- >> 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.**** >> >> **** >> > > > > -- > 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. > > -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: not available 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: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 484 bytes Desc: not available URL: From alain.berranger at gmail.com Wed Jan 16 21:05:22 2013 From: alain.berranger at gmail.com (Alain Berranger) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:05:22 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task In-Reply-To: <50F56F3F.D84C.005B.0@law.unh.edu> References: <50ED5F8E0200005B0009F54D@smtp.law.unh.edu> <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3E0103EC38E9@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com> <926FFC092954C2419CE5D66B8B3DFD47504FEF07@SN2PRD0610MB395.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9602BB231@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> <50F56F3F.D84C.005B.0@law.unh.edu> Message-ID: +1 On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Mary Wong wrote: > Jen put it much more elegantly than I did, but in essence that's what I > was trying to say. > > That said, I agree that a hard-and-fast rule for all circumstances may > be unsuitable, so I'm sympathetic to a "changed circumstance" argument - > that, however, is not what we've been tasked to discuss in this instance. > In this instance, nothing changed. The reason the motion was re-submitted > and re-voted on was because a Councilor did not understand the Council's > own rules. Regardless of whether in the future it is an IPC, NCSG or any > other SG/C's representative, I see absolutely no basis for a re-vote in > this type of situation. > > The rules are clearly stated, publicly available and (as I recall) > linked to in every Council meeting agenda document. Even if the person in > question is a brand-new novice Councilor - which is not the case here - I'd > be of the same view. Anyone elected to represent a constituent group has to > be assumed to know the rules and procedures under which they are to > discharge their office (just as ignorance of the law is no excuse.) > > I agree also that some orientation/training for new Councilors may be > desirable, but that again is beyond our remit. > > As for the question of consensus, well, at Council level a vote IS > representative of consensus (or lack thereof). Each SG/C has internal rules > as to how their Councilors express their SG/C's views through formal voting > - hence the care taken in the GNSO rules to make sure there has been > adequate instruction of, e.g., a proxy replacement for a Councilor. Again, > the fact that an SG/C failed in a particular instance to instruct their > representative isn't sufficient basis in my view to justify a re-submission > and re-vote. > > 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:* > > "'Alain Berranger'" , Jen Wolfe < > jwolfe at wolfedomain.com> > > *CC:* > > "Neuman, Jeff" , "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" < > Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu>, "avri at acm.org" , " > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > > *Date: * > > 1/15/2013 2:41 PM > > *Subject: * > > RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > Hi all, > > I find myself a bit more concerned about the possible effect of such a > rule on quashing motions for reconsideration. There may even be changed > circumstances that might justify reconsideration and one would not want to > make a rule that no motion that has previously been voted upon can be > brought before the Council again. > > > > I also tend to wonder whether a Councilor, especially a newer Councilor, > laboring under a misimpression about the conflict of interest rules, might > not, in itself, constitute a changed circumstance. Maybe I am less > critical because the Councilor in question is an IPC Councilor and also a > very good lawyer. If he was confused about this, I consider it possible > that anyone might be. So I tend to disagree that if the Councilor in > question had been NCSG, that there would have been a uproar about the > change in vote (or at least there shouldn't be in an ideal ICANN world). > > > > There is an aspect of this which for me involves "Do unto others as you > would have others do unto you." So it seems that if we say this is okay > the way it happened, the same leniency is given going forward to any > Councilor who labors under a misunderstanding of Council rules, subject > perhaps to the discretion of the Chair in bringing the motion again. > > > > The harder line would be: "Dear Councilor: You are responsible for > knowing all the rules before you vote and no misunderstanding on your > part as to any issue can serve as a basis for resubmission of a motion." > If we go this route, new Councilors should definitely be trained > accordingly. Do new GNSO Councilors receive training and orientation as is > the norm for most Boards? > > Anne > > > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese > Of Counsel > Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700 > One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > Tel (520) 629-4428 ? Fax (520) 879-4725 > AAikman at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman > * > > > *P **Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.* > > ** > *This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information > intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. > If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the > agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are > hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or > copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication > * > *was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the**original > message.*** > > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Alain Berranger > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11:26 AM > *To:* Jen Wolfe > *Cc:* Neuman, Jeff; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > > Thanks Jennifer, > > > Common sense speaks again! The black belt argument will often close a > discussion, though!!!! ;-) Many involved with ICANN would likely benefit > from six sigma training... including myself! > > > Let's see what the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements > Implementation I discussions will lead too. > > > Cheers, Alain > > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Jen Wolfe > wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> >> >> I hope your new year is off to a great start. I know I am new to the >> council and this committee so forgive me if I am misunderstanding our role, >> but what confused me about this particular issue was that all of the >> councilors had the opportunity for discussion, to ask questions and for >> consensus. A vote was taken and then a councilor asked further clarifying >> questions and then wanted to change his vote. From a strictly process >> standpoint, I am not clear on why a new vote should be allowed once the >> time for discussion and clarifying questions close. In any other >> parliamentary procedure, legislative body or corporate governance on >> boards, once a vote is taken, that?s it, even if someone misunderstood >> something procedurally or substantively. >> >> >> >> I fully understand the need for consensus, but once discussion closes and >> a vote is taken, from a process and procedural standpoint, it?s a slippery >> slope to start allowing votes to be re-opened because one person asked a >> clarifying question after the vote was taken. It not only takes up >> valuable time of the council in discussing new issues, but could be used >> inappropriately in the future if this were permissible. >> >> >> >> I look forward to participating in this committee. I have a black belt >> in six sigma process improvement and pride myself on finding ways to >> function more efficiently and hope I can provide meaningful contributions >> to this committee. >> >> >> >> Have a great weekend! >> >> >> >> *jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB* >> >> managing director, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy adivsory firm >> >> managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual >> property law firm >> >> *IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011 & 2012* >> >> *Follow Me:** [image: Description: Description: >> cid:image001.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] >> [image: Description: Description: cid:image002.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] >> [image: Description: Description: cid:image003.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] >> Blog: **What will you do when your CEO asks why you didn?t apply for a >> gTLD?* >> >> *Book:** **Domain Names Rewired* >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:*owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto: >> owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Neuman, Jeff >> *Sent:* Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:05 PM >> *To:* Alain Berranger; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu >> *Cc:* avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> >> >> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >> >> >> All, >> >> >> >> I am still missing the rationale as to why the NCSG representatives >> believe this rule should be in place for a bottom-up consensus driven >> organization. >> >> >> >> Please help me understand. >> >> >> >> *Jeffrey J. Neuman** >> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs* >> >> >> >> *From:* Alain Berranger [mailto:alain.berranger at gmail.com >> ] >> *Sent:* Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:01 PM >> *To:* Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu >> *Cc:* avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; >> jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Neuman, Jeff >> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >> >> >> >> >> I agree fully with Mary's arguments. >> >> >> >> Best, Alain >> >> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:16 PM, wrote: >> >> Thanks, Jonathan and Jeff. As I won't be on the SCI call this week, my >> view, FWIW, is that a motion that is properly introduced, seconded and >> voted on should NOT be re-introduced (whether in its original form or >> tweaked) in the absence of clear evidence indicating fraud, duress or other >> similar circumstance surrounding the original introduction/seconding/vote >> in relation to the motion. In this regard, Councilors' ignorance of the >> rules (e.g. effect of an abstention), and lack of instruction/direction >> from a Councilor's particular constituency/SG, should NOT count as the type >> of circumstance that ought to permit a reintroduction or re-vote on what in >> substance is the same motion. >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >>> "Jonathan Robinson" 01/10/13 1:12 AM >>> >> >> All, >> >> >> >> My understanding of the role of the SCI is to determine how improvements >> may be made for the future. >> >> >> >> When the motion was re-submitted to the December meeting, I do not >> believe that there was any procedure to guide the Council on the >> re-introduction of a motion that had recently been voted on. >> >> >> >> This specific issue has highlighted that we may need something to guide >> us on this in future. I do not believe that the SCI?s hands are tied at >> all. >> >> >> >> We have one useful example which raised concerns and now need to look at >> as general solution as possible for the future in order to cover both the >> example that raised the concern and other cases which may occur in future. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> >> >> Jonathan >> >> >> >> *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:* 09 January 2013 16:58 >> *To:* avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> *Cc:* jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us >> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >> >> >> I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in this >> specific instance: >> >> - the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on. >> >> - just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors >> were not aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they >> should be as it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a >> re-introduction of something that was properly introduced and voted on. >> >> - In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had >> given instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did >> not, the fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO >> rules, and if a constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the >> time to discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a >> motion (again, one properly introduced, seconded and voted on). >> >> - In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and >> referred the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion >> (without necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI >> before re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands >> are somewhat tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through >> - the mind boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and >> vote was improper or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive >> context within which ICANN is operating. >> >> 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 >> >> >> >>> Avri Doria 01/09/13 2:01 PM >>> >> >> Another thought experiment. >> >> There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG Policy >> Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, >> some voters got confused and voted against. >> >> Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote? >> >> Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to >> just reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and >> perhaps even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote? >> >> A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency >> beleive that its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be >> able to have a vote rescheduled at the next meeting? >> >> avri >> >> >> On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> > >> > Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can be >> reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on >> reconsideration in the ByLaws. >> > >> > One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that one >> of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case >> it was the Chair who had been on the losing side. >> > >> > We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done. >> > >> > avri >> > >> > >> > >> > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote: >> > >> >> I tend to agree, >> >> >> >> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; >> >> To: 'Avri Doria' ; Jeff Neuman ; >> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; >> >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson ; >> >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" >> type inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would >> permit a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter >> how obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are >> going to discuss tomorrow. >> > >> > the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated. >> > >> >> >> >> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO >> Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can >> provide prior to our call. >> > >> > It is all in the g-counci Procedures. >> > And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions >> already made. >> > >> > >> >> >> >> 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 the >> original message. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [ >> mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] >> On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM >> >> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson >> >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I guess I do not support that. >> >> >> >> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it >> back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should >> have past. >> >> >> >> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for >> motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has >> NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of >> the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. >> >> >> >> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should >> never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair >> from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination >> of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. >> >> >> >> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an >> NCUC based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did >> not go her way. >> >> >> >> avri >> >> >> >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >> >> >> >>> >> >>> Avri, >> >>> >> >>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the >> spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two >> votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some >> evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did >> not happen. >> >>> >> >>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence >> of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. >> >>> >> >>> Best regards, >> >>> >> >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >> >>> >> >>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com ] >> >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time >> >>> To: Neuman, Jeff >> >>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson >> >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >>> >> >>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that >> is not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the >> SG at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the >> Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure >> that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a >> motion has passed or not. >> >>> >> >>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the >> reality of the situation. >> >>> >> >>> avri >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed >> to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on >> items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given >> policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group >> making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last >> evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as >> supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over >> again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on >> consensus. >> >>>> >> >>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the >> result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that >> ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to >> be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and >> unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse >> within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence >> that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, >> harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a >> second measurement of consensus is not an issue. >> >>>> >> >>>> Best regards, >> >>>> >> >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >> >>>> >> >>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -----Original Message----- >> >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com ] >> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time >> >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> >>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff >> >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to >> vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), >> two remedies were possible. >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when >> it is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency >> and accountability. >> >>>> >> >>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to >> make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my >> stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they >> should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If >> it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida >> was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore >> would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our >> hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work >> according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. >> >>>> >> >>>> avri >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------- >> >> 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 >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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. >> >> >> > > > > -- > 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. > > > -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 386 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 484 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: not available URL: From alain.berranger at gmail.com Wed Jan 16 21:07:43 2013 From: alain.berranger at gmail.com (Alain Berranger) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:07:43 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task - Councilor Training In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9602BB231@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Great idea! Alain On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Ron Andruff wrote: > ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** > > Dear all,**** > > ** ** > > I think that the concept of providing a new councilor primer is an > excellent idea and one that we should give more thought to. Indeed, if all > new Councilors are provided with a briefing on their mandate, documents > that they should review, etc. that would serve the ICANN community and its > various constituencies well. Moreover, a neutral presentation of > roles/responsibilities and what is expected of them, may go further to > assist new councilors in learning how to find consensus. Something we can > all agree has been lacking in the trench warfare that we have seen in > Council over the years.**** > > ** ** > > Thanks to Jennifer and Anne for bringing this idea forward. Let?s explore > this further.**** > > ** ** > > 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 *Aikman-Scalese, Anne > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 15, 2013 2:41 PM > *To:* 'Alain Berranger'; Jen Wolfe > *Cc:* Neuman, Jeff; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > *Subject:* RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task**** > > ** ** > > Hi all,**** > > I find myself a bit more concerned about the possible effect of such a > rule on quashing motions for reconsideration. There may even be changed > circumstances that might justify reconsideration and one would not want to > make a rule that no motion that has previously been voted upon can be > brought before the Council again. **** > > **** > > I also tend to wonder whether a Councilor, especially a newer Councilor, > laboring under a misimpression about the conflict of interest rules, might > not, in itself, constitute a changed circumstance. Maybe I am less > critical because the Councilor in question is an IPC Councilor and also a > very good lawyer. If he was confused about this, I consider it possible > that anyone might be. So I tend to disagree that if the Councilor in > question had been NCSG, that there would have been a uproar about the > change in vote (or at least there shouldn't be in an ideal ICANN world).** > ** > > **** > > There is an aspect of this which for me involves "Do unto others as you > would have others do unto you." So it seems that if we say this is okay > the way it happened, the same leniency is given going forward to any > Councilor who labors under a misunderstanding of Council rules, subject > perhaps to the discretion of the Chair in bringing the motion again.**** > > **** > > The harder line would be: "Dear Councilor: You are responsible for > knowing all the rules before you vote and no misunderstanding on your > part as to any issue can serve as a basis for resubmission of a motion." > If we go this route, new Councilors should definitely be trained > accordingly. Do new GNSO Councilors receive training and orientation as is > the norm for most Boards?**** > > Anne**** > > **** > > *****Anne E. Aikman-Scalese > Of Counsel > Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700 > One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > Tel (520) 629-4428 ? Fax (520) 879-4725 > AAikman at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman > * **** > > *P **Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.***** > > *This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information > intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. > If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the > agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are > hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or > copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication > was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the > original message.* > > **** > > ** ** > ------------------------------ > > *From:* owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Alain Berranger > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11:26 AM > *To:* Jen Wolfe > *Cc:* Neuman, Jeff; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task**** > > Thanks Jennifer, **** > > ** ** > > Common sense speaks again! The black belt argument will often close a > discussion, though!!!! ;-) Many involved with ICANN would likely benefit > from six sigma training... including myself!**** > > ** ** > > Let's see what the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements Implementation > I discussions will lead too.**** > > ** ** > > Cheers, Alain**** > > ** ** > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Jen Wolfe wrote: > **** > > Hi everyone,**** > > **** > > I hope your new year is off to a great start. I know I am new to the > council and this committee so forgive me if I am misunderstanding our role, > but what confused me about this particular issue was that all of the > councilors had the opportunity for discussion, to ask questions and for > consensus. A vote was taken and then a councilor asked further clarifying > questions and then wanted to change his vote. From a strictly process > standpoint, I am not clear on why a new vote should be allowed once the > time for discussion and clarifying questions close. In any other > parliamentary procedure, legislative body or corporate governance on > boards, once a vote is taken, that?s it, even if someone misunderstood > something procedurally or substantively. **** > > **** > > I fully understand the need for consensus, but once discussion closes and > a vote is taken, from a process and procedural standpoint, it?s a slippery > slope to start allowing votes to be re-opened because one person asked a > clarifying question after the vote was taken. It not only takes up > valuable time of the council in discussing new issues, but could be used > inappropriately in the future if this were permissible. **** > > **** > > I look forward to participating in this committee. I have a black belt in > six sigma process improvement and pride myself on finding ways to function > more efficiently and hope I can provide meaningful contributions to this > committee. **** > > **** > > Have a great weekend!**** > > **** > > *jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB***** > > managing director, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy adivsory firm*** > * > > managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual > property law firm**** > > *IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011 & 2012***** > > *Follow Me:** **[image: Description: Description: > cid:image001.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0]* > * **[image: Description: Description: cid:image002.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0]* > * **[image: Description: Description: cid:image003.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0]* > * > **Blog:** **What will you do when your CEO asks why you didn?t apply for > a gTLD?* **** > > *Book:** **Domain Names Rewired* > **** > > **** > > **** > > *From:* owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Neuman, Jeff > *Sent:* Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:05 PM > *To:* Alain Berranger; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu > *Cc:* avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org**** > > > *Subject:* RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task**** > > **** > > All,**** > > **** > > I am still missing the rationale as to why the NCSG representatives > believe this rule should be in place for a bottom-up consensus driven > organization. **** > > **** > > Please help me understand.**** > > **** > > *Jeffrey J. Neuman** > **Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs***** > > **** > > *From:* Alain Berranger [mailto:alain.berranger at gmail.com] > > *Sent:* Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:01 PM > *To:* Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu > *Cc:* avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; > jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Neuman, Jeff > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task**** > > **** > > **** > > I agree fully with Mary's arguments.**** > > **** > > Best, Alain**** > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:16 PM, wrote:**** > > Thanks, Jonathan and Jeff. As I won't be on the SCI call this week, my > view, FWIW, is that a motion that is properly introduced, seconded and > voted on should NOT be re-introduced (whether in its original form or > tweaked) in the absence of clear evidence indicating fraud, duress or other > similar circumstance surrounding the original introduction/seconding/vote > in relation to the motion. In this regard, Councilors' ignorance of the > rules (e.g. effect of an abstention), and lack of instruction/direction > from a Councilor's particular constituency/SG, should NOT count as the type > of circumstance that ought to permit a reintroduction or re-vote on what in > substance is the same motion.**** > > > > 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 **** > > **** > > >>> "Jonathan Robinson" 01/10/13 1:12 AM >>>**** > > All,**** > > **** > > My understanding of the role of the SCI is to determine how improvements > may be made for the future.**** > > **** > > When the motion was re-submitted to the December meeting, I do not believe > that there was any procedure to guide the Council on the re-introduction of > a motion that had recently been voted on.**** > > **** > > This specific issue has highlighted that we may need something to guide us > on this in future. I do not believe that the SCI?s hands are tied at all. > **** > > **** > > We have one useful example which raised concerns and now need to look at > as general solution as possible for the future in order to cover both the > example that raised the concern and other cases which may occur in future. > **** > > **** > > Thanks,**** > > **** > > **** > > Jonathan**** > > **** > > *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:* 09 January 2013 16:58 > *To:* avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > *Cc:* jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task**** > > **** > > I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in this > specific instance: > > - the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on. > > - just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors were > not aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they should > be as it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a re-introduction > of something that was properly introduced and voted on. > > - In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had > given instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did > not, the fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO > rules, and if a constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the > time to discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a > motion (again, one properly introduced, seconded and voted on). > > - In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and > referred the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion > (without necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI > before re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands > are somewhat tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through > - the mind boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and > vote was improper or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive > context within which ICANN is operating. > > 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 **** > > > >>> Avri Doria 01/09/13 2:01 PM >>> > > Another thought experiment. > > There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG Policy > Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, > some voters got confused and voted against. > > Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote? > > Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to just > reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and > perhaps even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote? > > A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency beleive > that its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be able to > have a vote rescheduled at the next meeting? > > avri > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > > Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can be > reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on > reconsideration in the ByLaws. > > > > One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that one > of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case > it was the Chair who had been on the losing side. > > > > We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done. > > > > avri > > > > > > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote: > > > >> I tend to agree, > >> > >> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; > >> To: 'Avri Doria' ; Jeff Neuman ; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; > >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson ; > >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM > >> > >> > >> Hi all, > >> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" type > inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit > a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how > obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going > to discuss tomorrow. > > > > the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated. > > > >> > >> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO > Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can > provide prior to our call. > > > > It is all in the g-counci Procedures. > > And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions > already made. > > > > > >> > >> 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 the > original message. > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [ > mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] > On Behalf Of Avri Doria > >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM > >> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson > >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >> > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I guess I do not support that. > >> > >> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it > back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should > have past. > >> > >> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for > motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has > NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of > the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. > >> > >> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should > never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair > from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination > of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. > >> > >> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an NCUC > based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go > her way. > >> > >> avri > >> > >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Avri, > >>> > >>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the > spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two > votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some > evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did > not happen. > >>> > >>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence > of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> > >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman > >>> > >>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com ] > >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time > >>> To: Neuman, Jeff > >>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson > >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that is > not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG > at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the > Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure > that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a > motion has passed or not. > >>> > >>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the > reality of the situation. > >>> > >>> avri > >>> > >>> > >>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed > to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on > items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given > policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group > making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last > evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as > supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over > again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on > consensus. > >>>> > >>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the > result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that > ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to > be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and > unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse > within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence > that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, > harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a > second measurement of consensus is not an issue. > >>>> > >>>> Best regards, > >>>> > >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman > >>>> > >>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com ] > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time > >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff > >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to > vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), > two remedies were possible. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it > is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and > accountability. > >>>> > >>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to > make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my > stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they > should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If > it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in ** > Florida** was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, > and Gore would have been President of the ****US****. and yes, we may > wish with all our hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting > does not work according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote > given. > >>>> > >>>> avri > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ---------------------- > >> 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 > >> > > **** > > > > **** > > **** > > -- > 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 <%2B1%20514%20484%207824>; 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.**** > > **** > > > > **** > > ** ** > > -- > 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.**** > > ** ** > -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.gif Type: image/gif Size: 165 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.gif Type: image/gif Size: 152 bytes Desc: not available 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: image005.gif Type: image/gif Size: 141 bytes Desc: not available URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Wed Jan 16 21:25:58 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 21:25:58 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task In-Reply-To: References: <50ED5F8E0200005B0009F54D@smtp.law.unh.edu> <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3E0103EC38E9@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com> <926FFC092954C2419CE5D66B8B3DFD47504FEF07@SN2PRD0610MB395.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9602BB231@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> <50F56F3F.D84C.005B.0@law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9602C0A1F@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Mary, It seems to me the question put is under what circumstances should the same motion be prohibited or permitted so it's not really a question based solely on what happened in this instance. I therefore disagree that recommending training and orientation for Councilors is beyond the scope of the inquiry. It appears to me that ICANN is just now seriously considering "best practices" that have been in place in some other organizations for quite some time. It's a growing organization with a growing footprint and growing resources. In this regard, I found Marika's email most helpful as it shows that the need for training has been recognized. Further, the question of conflict of interest is not such an easy one. If we look even at what the ICANN Board itself has done in terms of improvements over the past 1-2 years, we can all see this. I'm not sure to what extent the question put to us raises any issues as to conflict of interest so I will have to ask the Chair to clarify that. Is the rule that as long as your SOI is current, you can vote on anything? (Sorry but since I am relatively new, I need a bit more background.) Anne [cid:107061221 at 16012013-1145]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 Alain Berranger Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 2:05 PM To: Mary Wong Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jeff Neuman Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task +1 On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Mary Wong > wrote: Jen put it much more elegantly than I did, but in essence that's what I was trying to say. That said, I agree that a hard-and-fast rule for all circumstances may be unsuitable, so I'm sympathetic to a "changed circumstance" argument - that, however, is not what we've been tasked to discuss in this instance. In this instance, nothing changed. The reason the motion was re-submitted and re-voted on was because a Councilor did not understand the Council's own rules. Regardless of whether in the future it is an IPC, NCSG or any other SG/C's representative, I see absolutely no basis for a re-vote in this type of situation. The rules are clearly stated, publicly available and (as I recall) linked to in every Council meeting agenda document. Even if the person in question is a brand-new novice Councilor - which is not the case here - I'd be of the same view. Anyone elected to represent a constituent group has to be assumed to know the rules and procedures under which they are to discharge their office (just as ignorance of the law is no excuse.) I agree also that some orientation/training for new Councilors may be desirable, but that again is beyond our remit. As for the question of consensus, well, at Council level a vote IS representative of consensus (or lack thereof). Each SG/C has internal rules as to how their Councilors express their SG/C's views through formal voting - hence the care taken in the GNSO rules to make sure there has been adequate instruction of, e.g., a proxy replacement for a Councilor. Again, the fact that an SG/C failed in a particular instance to instruct their representative isn't sufficient basis in my view to justify a re-submission and re-vote. 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: "'Alain Berranger'" >, Jen Wolfe > CC: "Neuman, Jeff" >, "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Date: 1/15/2013 2:41 PM Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Hi all, I find myself a bit more concerned about the possible effect of such a rule on quashing motions for reconsideration. There may even be changed circumstances that might justify reconsideration and one would not want to make a rule that no motion that has previously been voted upon can be brought before the Council again. I also tend to wonder whether a Councilor, especially a newer Councilor, laboring under a misimpression about the conflict of interest rules, might not, in itself, constitute a changed circumstance. Maybe I am less critical because the Councilor in question is an IPC Councilor and also a very good lawyer. If he was confused about this, I consider it possible that anyone might be. So I tend to disagree that if the Councilor in question had been NCSG, that there would have been a uproar about the change in vote (or at least there shouldn't be in an ideal ICANN world). There is an aspect of this which for me involves "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." So it seems that if we say this is okay the way it happened, the same leniency is given going forward to any Councilor who labors under a misunderstanding of Council rules, subject perhaps to the discretion of the Chair in bringing the motion again. The harder line would be: "Dear Councilor: You are responsible for knowing all the rules before you vote and no misunderstanding on your part as to any issue can serve as a basis for resubmission of a motion." If we go this route, new Councilors should definitely be trained accordingly. Do new GNSO Councilors receive training and orientation as is the norm for most Boards? Anne [cid:107061221 at 16012013-114C] 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 Alain Berranger Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11:26 AM To: Jen Wolfe Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Thanks Jennifer, Common sense speaks again! The black belt argument will often close a discussion, though!!!! ;-) Many involved with ICANN would likely benefit from six sigma training... including myself! Let's see what the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements Implementation I discussions will lead too. Cheers, Alain On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Jen Wolfe > wrote: Hi everyone, I hope your new year is off to a great start. I know I am new to the council and this committee so forgive me if I am misunderstanding our role, but what confused me about this particular issue was that all of the councilors had the opportunity for discussion, to ask questions and for consensus. A vote was taken and then a councilor asked further clarifying questions and then wanted to change his vote. From a strictly process standpoint, I am not clear on why a new vote should be allowed once the time for discussion and clarifying questions close. In any other parliamentary procedure, legislative body or corporate governance on boards, once a vote is taken, that's it, even if someone misunderstood something procedurally or substantively. I fully understand the need for consensus, but once discussion closes and a vote is taken, from a process and procedural standpoint, it's a slippery slope to start allowing votes to be re-opened because one person asked a clarifying question after the vote was taken. It not only takes up valuable time of the council in discussing new issues, but could be used inappropriately in the future if this were permissible. I look forward to participating in this committee. I have a black belt in six sigma process improvement and pride myself on finding ways to function more efficiently and hope I can provide meaningful contributions to this committee. Have a great weekend! jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB managing director, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy adivsory firm managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual property law firm IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011 & 2012 Follow Me: [Description: Description: cid:image001.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] [Description: Description: cid:image002.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] [Description: Description: cid:image003.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] Blog: What will you do when your CEO asks why you didn't apply for a gTLD? Book: Domain Names Rewired From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:05 PM To: Alain Berranger; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task All, I am still missing the rationale as to why the NCSG representatives believe this rule should be in place for a bottom-up consensus driven organization. Please help me understand. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: Alain Berranger [mailto:alain.berranger at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:01 PM To: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Neuman, Jeff Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task I agree fully with Mary's arguments. Best, Alain On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:16 PM, > wrote: Thanks, Jonathan and Jeff. As I won't be on the SCI call this week, my view, FWIW, is that a motion that is properly introduced, seconded and voted on should NOT be re-introduced (whether in its original form or tweaked) in the absence of clear evidence indicating fraud, duress or other similar circumstance surrounding the original introduction/seconding/vote in relation to the motion. In this regard, Councilors' ignorance of the rules (e.g. effect of an abstention), and lack of instruction/direction from a Councilor's particular constituency/SG, should NOT count as the type of circumstance that ought to permit a reintroduction or re-vote on what in substance is the same motion. 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 >>> "Jonathan Robinson" 01/10/13 1:12 AM >>> All, My understanding of the role of the SCI is to determine how improvements may be made for the future. When the motion was re-submitted to the December meeting, I do not believe that there was any procedure to guide the Council on the re-introduction of a motion that had recently been voted on. This specific issue has highlighted that we may need something to guide us on this in future. I do not believe that the SCI?s hands are tied at all. We have one useful example which raised concerns and now need to look at as general solution as possible for the future in order to cover both the example that raised the concern and other cases which may occur in future. Thanks, Jonathan 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: 09 January 2013 16:58 To: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in this specific instance: - the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on. - just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors were not aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they should be as it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a re-introduction of something that was properly introduced and voted on. - In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had given instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did not, the fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO rules, and if a constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the time to discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a motion (again, one properly introduced, seconded and voted on). - In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and referred the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion (without necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI before re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands are somewhat tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through - the mind boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and vote was improper or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive context within which ICANN is operating. 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 >>> Avri Doria > 01/09/13 2:01 PM >>> Another thought experiment. There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG Policy Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, some voters got confused and voted against. Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote? Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to just reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and perhaps even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote? A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency beleive that its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be able to have a vote rescheduled at the next meeting? avri On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote: > > Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can be reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on reconsideration in the ByLaws. > > One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that one of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case it was the Chair who had been on the losing side. > > We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done. > > avri > > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote: > >> I tend to agree, >> >> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne >; >> To: 'Avri Doria' >; Jeff Neuman >; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >; >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson >; >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM >> >> >> Hi all, >> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" type inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going to discuss tomorrow. > > the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated. > >> >> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can provide prior to our call. > > It is all in the g-counci Procedures. > And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions already made. > > >> >> 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 the original message. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM >> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I guess I do not support that. >> >> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should have past. >> >> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. >> >> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. >> >> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an NCUC based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go her way. >> >> avri >> >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >> >>> >>> Avri, >>> >>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did not happen. >>> >>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>> >>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time >>> To: Neuman, Jeff >>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that is not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion has passed or not. >>> >>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the reality of the situation. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on consensus. >>>> >>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a second measurement of consensus is not an issue. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>>> >>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: >>>> >>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two remedies were possible. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and accountability. >>>> >>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------- >> 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 >> > -- 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. -- 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. -- 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: -------------- 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: ATT00002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: ATT00002.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: ATT00001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ATT00003.png Type: image/png Size: 484 bytes Desc: ATT00003.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ATT00004.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: ATT00004.png URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Wed Jan 16 21:48:21 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:48:21 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9602C0A1F@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Dear Anne, With respect to your question about conflicts of interest, the information below may be helpful. As similar question had come up recently in the GNSO Council and this is the information I sent to them. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ------------------------------------------ The GNSO Council Operating Procedures (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf) differentiate between "conflicts of interest" and "statements of interest." The Procedures contain requirements relating to Statements of interest in Section 5.0. These are defined as, "A written statement made by a Relevant Party that provides a declaration of interests that may affect the Relevant Party's judgement, on any matters to be considered by the GNSO Group. " These statements of interest are to be provided by any member of a GNSO Group (such as the Council, but also Working Groups) to the Secretariat not less frequently than once a year and at the beginning of a GNSO Group meeting the Chair asks if members have updates to their statements of interest. Below I've included the questions that form the content of the statement of interest. The Procedures also reference "conflicts of interest," but only in the context of a disclaimer (see excerpt from Section 4.5, Obligational Abstentions, below) that refers to the Statements of Interest procedures and notes that these statements do not require that the Councilor abstain from participating and voting. In particular, section 4.5 notes as follows: "?the term ?Conflict of Interest? will not pertain when a GNSO Councilor argues for and votes ?Yes? or ?No? on a matter which, by virtue of that action, directly or indirectly benefits that individual financially or economically; however, that interpretation does not imply that circumstances cannot occur in which a Councilor may perceive his/her situation as obligating a formal abstention." With respect to abstentions, the "Obligational Abstention"(referred to as "obligating a formal abstention" above) allows a Councilor to abstain from a vote as follows and provides cases as follows: A Councilor who believes that proceeding to vote on a motion or action before the Council not only warrants, but requires, his/her abstention and, thereby, recusal from deliberations, is considered to be facing an obligational abstention. Although it is not possible to draft a set of exhaustive conditions under which obligational abstentions can arise, two examples are provided by way of illustration: Case 1: a Councilor (attorney by profession) is representing a client in legal action relating to a matter before the Council and, and as required by his/her professional code, must abstain and, furthermore, such abstention should not be counted as a negative vote. [Note: this type of situation requires the remedy specified in Paragraph 4.5.3 below]. Case 2: a Councilor is a paid consultant for a national political body that has a vested interest in a particular motion before the Council. The Councilor is concerned that his/her future income potential and ability to retain a consulting engagement with the national body may be affected if he/she votes on the measure. In such a case, the Councilor believes that the ethical course of action is to abstain. In the two examples above, personal or professional obligations interfere with the Council member?s ability to participate ethically; thus, requiring recusal from deliberations on the matter and abstention from voting. From: , Anne > Date: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 4:25 PM To: 'Alain Berranger' >, Mary Wong > Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, Jeff Neuman > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Mary, It seems to me the question put is under what circumstances should the same motion be prohibited or permitted so it's not really a question based solely on what happened in this instance. I therefore disagree that recommending training and orientation for Councilors is beyond the scope of the inquiry. It appears to me that ICANN is just now seriously considering "best practices" that have been in place in some other organizations for quite some time. It's a growing organization with a growing footprint and growing resources. In this regard, I found Marika's email most helpful as it shows that the need for training has been recognized. Further, the question of conflict of interest is not such an easy one. If we look even at what the ICANN Board itself has done in terms of improvements over the past 1-2 years, we can all see this. I'm not sure to what extent the question put to us raises any issues as to conflict of interest so I will have to ask the Chair to clarify that. Is the rule that as long as your SOI is current, you can vote on anything? (Sorry but since I am relatively new, I need a bit more background.) Anne [cid:107061221 at 16012013-1145]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 Alain Berranger Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 2:05 PM To: Mary Wong Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jeff Neuman Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task +1 On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Mary Wong > wrote: Jen put it much more elegantly than I did, but in essence that's what I was trying to say. That said, I agree that a hard-and-fast rule for all circumstances may be unsuitable, so I'm sympathetic to a "changed circumstance" argument - that, however, is not what we've been tasked to discuss in this instance. In this instance, nothing changed. The reason the motion was re-submitted and re-voted on was because a Councilor did not understand the Council's own rules. Regardless of whether in the future it is an IPC, NCSG or any other SG/C's representative, I see absolutely no basis for a re-vote in this type of situation. The rules are clearly stated, publicly available and (as I recall) linked to in every Council meeting agenda document. Even if the person in question is a brand-new novice Councilor - which is not the case here - I'd be of the same view. Anyone elected to represent a constituent group has to be assumed to know the rules and procedures under which they are to discharge their office (just as ignorance of the law is no excuse.) I agree also that some orientation/training for new Councilors may be desirable, but that again is beyond our remit. As for the question of consensus, well, at Council level a vote IS representative of consensus (or lack thereof). Each SG/C has internal rules as to how their Councilors express their SG/C's views through formal voting - hence the care taken in the GNSO rules to make sure there has been adequate instruction of, e.g., a proxy replacement for a Councilor. Again, the fact that an SG/C failed in a particular instance to instruct their representative isn't sufficient basis in my view to justify a re-submission and re-vote. 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: "'Alain Berranger'" >, Jen Wolfe > CC: "Neuman, Jeff" >, "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu" >, "avri at acm.org" >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Date: 1/15/2013 2:41 PM Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Hi all, I find myself a bit more concerned about the possible effect of such a rule on quashing motions for reconsideration. There may even be changed circumstances that might justify reconsideration and one would not want to make a rule that no motion that has previously been voted upon can be brought before the Council again. I also tend to wonder whether a Councilor, especially a newer Councilor, laboring under a misimpression about the conflict of interest rules, might not, in itself, constitute a changed circumstance. Maybe I am less critical because the Councilor in question is an IPC Councilor and also a very good lawyer. If he was confused about this, I consider it possible that anyone might be. So I tend to disagree that if the Councilor in question had been NCSG, that there would have been a uproar about the change in vote (or at least there shouldn't be in an ideal ICANN world). There is an aspect of this which for me involves "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." So it seems that if we say this is okay the way it happened, the same leniency is given going forward to any Councilor who labors under a misunderstanding of Council rules, subject perhaps to the discretion of the Chair in bringing the motion again. The harder line would be: "Dear Councilor: You are responsible for knowing all the rules before you vote and no misunderstanding on your part as to any issue can serve as a basis for resubmission of a motion." If we go this route, new Councilors should definitely be trained accordingly. Do new GNSO Councilors receive training and orientation as is the norm for most Boards? Anne [cid:107061221 at 16012013-114C]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 Alain Berranger Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11:26 AM To: Jen Wolfe Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task Thanks Jennifer, Common sense speaks again! The black belt argument will often close a discussion, though!!!! ;-) Many involved with ICANN would likely benefit from six sigma training... including myself! Let's see what the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements Implementation I discussions will lead too. Cheers, Alain On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Jen Wolfe > wrote: Hi everyone, I hope your new year is off to a great start. I know I am new to the council and this committee so forgive me if I am misunderstanding our role, but what confused me about this particular issue was that all of the councilors had the opportunity for discussion, to ask questions and for consensus. A vote was taken and then a councilor asked further clarifying questions and then wanted to change his vote. From a strictly process standpoint, I am not clear on why a new vote should be allowed once the time for discussion and clarifying questions close. In any other parliamentary procedure, legislative body or corporate governance on boards, once a vote is taken, that?s it, even if someone misunderstood something procedurally or substantively. I fully understand the need for consensus, but once discussion closes and a vote is taken, from a process and procedural standpoint, it?s a slippery slope to start allowing votes to be re-opened because one person asked a clarifying question after the vote was taken. It not only takes up valuable time of the council in discussing new issues, but could be used inappropriately in the future if this were permissible. I look forward to participating in this committee. I have a black belt in six sigma process improvement and pride myself on finding ways to function more efficiently and hope I can provide meaningful contributions to this committee. Have a great weekend! jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB managing director, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy adivsory firm managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual property law firm IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011 & 2012 Follow Me: [cid:107061221 at 16012013-1153] [cid:107061221 at 16012013-115A] [cid:107061221 at 16012013-1161] Blog: What will you do when your CEO asks why you didn?t apply for a gTLD? Book: Domain Names Rewired From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:05 PM To: Alain Berranger; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task All, I am still missing the rationale as to why the NCSG representatives believe this rule should be in place for a bottom-up consensus driven organization. Please help me understand. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: Alain Berranger [mailto:alain.berranger at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:01 PM To: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Neuman, Jeff Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task I agree fully with Mary's arguments. Best, Alain On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:16 PM, > wrote: Thanks, Jonathan and Jeff. As I won't be on the SCI call this week, my view, FWIW, is that a motion that is properly introduced, seconded and voted on should NOT be re-introduced (whether in its original form or tweaked) in the absence of clear evidence indicating fraud, duress or other similar circumstance surrounding the original introduction/seconding/vote in relation to the motion. In this regard, Councilors' ignorance of the rules (e.g. effect of an abstention), and lack of instruction/direction from a Councilor's particular constituency/SG, should NOT count as the type of circumstance that ought to permit a reintroduction or re-vote on what in substance is the same motion. 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 >>> "Jonathan Robinson" 01/10/13 1:12 AM >>> All, My understanding of the role of the SCI is to determine how improvements may be made for the future. When the motion was re-submitted to the December meeting, I do not believe that there was any procedure to guide the Council on the re-introduction of a motion that had recently been voted on. This specific issue has highlighted that we may need something to guide us on this in future. I do not believe that the SCI?s hands are tied at all. We have one useful example which raised concerns and now need to look at as general solution as possible for the future in order to cover both the example that raised the concern and other cases which may occur in future. Thanks, Jonathan 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: 09 January 2013 16:58 To: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in this specific instance: - the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on. - just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors were not aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they should be as it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a re-introduction of something that was properly introduced and voted on. - In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had given instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did not, the fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO rules, and if a constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the time to discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a motion (again, one properly introduced, seconded and voted on). - In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and referred the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion (without necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI before re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands are somewhat tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through - the mind boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and vote was improper or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive context within which ICANN is operating. 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 >>> Avri Doria > 01/09/13 2:01 PM >>> Another thought experiment. There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG Policy Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, some voters got confused and voted against. Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote? Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to just reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and perhaps even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote? A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency beleive that its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be able to have a vote rescheduled at the next meeting? avri On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote: > > Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can be reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on reconsideration in the ByLaws. > > One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that one of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case it was the Chair who had been on the losing side. > > We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done. > > avri > > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote: > >> I tend to agree, >> >> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne >; >> To: 'Avri Doria' >; Jeff Neuman >; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >; >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson >; >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM >> >> >> Hi all, >> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" type inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going to discuss tomorrow. > > the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated. > >> >> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can provide prior to our call. > > It is all in the g-counci Procedures. > And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions already made. > > >> >> 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 the original message. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM >> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I guess I do not support that. >> >> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should have past. >> >> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. >> >> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. >> >> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an NCUC based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go her way. >> >> avri >> >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >> >>> >>> Avri, >>> >>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did not happen. >>> >>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>> >>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time >>> To: Neuman, Jeff >>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that is not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion has passed or not. >>> >>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the reality of the situation. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on consensus. >>>> >>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a second measurement of consensus is not an issue. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>>> >>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: >>>> >>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two remedies were possible. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and accountability. >>>> >>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------- >> 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 >> > -- 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. -- 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. -- 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: -------------- 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: ATT00002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: ATT00002.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: ATT00001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ATT00003.png Type: image/png Size: 484 bytes Desc: ATT00003.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ATT00004.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: ATT00004.png URL: From avri at acm.org Thu Jan 17 13:15:25 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:15:25 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task - Councilor Training In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0BA6E342-3061-4876-8A2A-FEE5C9536A74@acm.org> Hi, Since I was first aded to the g-cpuncil way back when, people have talk about training for new council members. Glad to see that old ideas never die. - I think it is out of scope for this group. We are responsible for looking at the rules themselves. Not how a council members becomes educated in those rules. - I am sure that too many council members would be too busy or too intelligent to bother taking the course or learn anything from them. they are not that hard or long to read and the staff has done a good job of creating information pieces. Anyone who is smart enough to be on the council can learn the rules if they wish to learn the rules. Plus except for NCAs, any new council member have the senior council members form their Constituency/SG to epxlain things to them form their C/SG's perspective. - there is a major education effort elsewhere in ICANN. It is bogged down in politics, because no one can agree on the content and the identity of the teachers. We do not trust each other enough to allow someone from the other side, or even staff, to do the teaching. avri On 15 Jan 2013, at 17:23, Ron Andruff wrote: > Dear all, > > I think that the concept of providing a new councilor primer is an excellent idea and one that we should give more thought to. Indeed, if all new Councilors are provided with a briefing on their mandate, documents that they should review, etc. that would serve the ICANN community and its various constituencies well. Moreover, a neutral presentation of roles/responsibilities and what is expected of them, may go further to assist new councilors in learning how to find consensus. Something we can all agree has been lacking in the trench warfare that we have seen in Council over the years. > > Thanks to Jennifer and Anne for bringing this idea forward. Let?s explore this further. > > 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 Aikman-Scalese, Anne > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 2:41 PM > To: 'Alain Berranger'; Jen Wolfe > Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > Hi all, > I find myself a bit more concerned about the possible effect of such a rule on quashing motions for reconsideration. There may even be changed circumstances that might justify reconsideration and one would not want to make a rule that no motion that has previously been voted upon can be brought before the Council again. > > I also tend to wonder whether a Councilor, especially a newer Councilor, laboring under a misimpression about the conflict of interest rules, might not, in itself, constitute a changed circumstance. Maybe I am less critical because the Councilor in question is an IPC Councilor and also a very good lawyer. If he was confused about this, I consider it possible that anyone might be. So I tend to disagree that if the Councilor in question had been NCSG, that there would have been a uproar about the change in vote (or at least there shouldn't be in an ideal ICANN world). > > There is an aspect of this which for me involves "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." So it seems that if we say this is okay the way it happened, the same leniency is given going forward to any Councilor who labors under a misunderstanding of Council rules, subject perhaps to the discretion of the Chair in bringing the motion again. > > The harder line would be: "Dear Councilor: You are responsible for knowing all the rules before you vote and no misunderstanding on your part as to any issue can serve as a basis for resubmission of a motion." If we go this route, new Councilors should definitely be trained accordingly. Do new GNSO Councilors receive training and orientation as is the norm for most Boards? > Anne > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese > Of Counsel > Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700 > One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > Tel (520) 629-4428 ? Fax (520) 879-4725 > AAikman at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman > > P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. > This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information > intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. > If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the > agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are > hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or > copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication > was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. > > > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alain Berranger > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11:26 AM > To: Jen Wolfe > Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > Thanks Jennifer, > > Common sense speaks again! The black belt argument will often close a discussion, though!!!! ;-) Many involved with ICANN would likely benefit from six sigma training... including myself! > > Let's see what the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements Implementation I discussions will lead too. > > Cheers, Alain > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Jen Wolfe wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I hope your new year is off to a great start. I know I am new to the council and this committee so forgive me if I am misunderstanding our role, but what confused me about this particular issue was that all of the councilors had the opportunity for discussion, to ask questions and for consensus. A vote was taken and then a councilor asked further clarifying questions and then wanted to change his vote. From a strictly process standpoint, I am not clear on why a new vote should be allowed once the time for discussion and clarifying questions close. In any other parliamentary procedure, legislative body or corporate governance on boards, once a vote is taken, that?s it, even if someone misunderstood something procedurally or substantively. > > I fully understand the need for consensus, but once discussion closes and a vote is taken, from a process and procedural standpoint, it?s a slippery slope to start allowing votes to be re-opened because one person asked a clarifying question after the vote was taken. It not only takes up valuable time of the council in discussing new issues, but could be used inappropriately in the future if this were permissible. > > I look forward to participating in this committee. I have a black belt in six sigma process improvement and pride myself on finding ways to function more efficiently and hope I can provide meaningful contributions to this committee. > > Have a great weekend! > > JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB > MANAGING DIRECTOR, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADIVSORY FIRM > MANAGING PARTNER, WOLFE, SADLER, BREEN, MORASCH & COLBY, AN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW FIRM > IAM 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011 & 2012 > Follow Me: > Blog: What will you do when your CEO asks why you didn?t apply for a gTLD? > > Book: Domain Names Rewired > > > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:05 PM > To: Alain Berranger; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu > Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > All, > > I am still missing the rationale as to why the NCSG representatives believe this rule should be in place for a bottom-up consensus driven organization. > > Please help me understand. > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs > > > From: Alain Berranger [mailto:alain.berranger at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:01 PM > To: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu > Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Neuman, Jeff > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > > I agree fully with Mary's arguments. > > Best, Alain > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:16 PM, wrote: > Thanks, Jonathan and Jeff. As I won't be on the SCI call this week, my view, FWIW, is that a motion that is properly introduced, seconded and voted on should NOT be re-introduced (whether in its original form or tweaked) in the absence of clear evidence indicating fraud, duress or other similar circumstance surrounding the original introduction/seconding/vote in relation to the motion. In this regard, Councilors' ignorance of the rules (e.g. effect of an abstention), and lack of instruction/direction from a Councilor's particular constituency/SG, should NOT count as the type of circumstance that ought to permit a reintroduction or re-vote on what in substance is the same motion. > > > 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 > > >>> "Jonathan Robinson" 01/10/13 1:12 AM >>> > All, > > My understanding of the role of the SCI is to determine how improvements may be made for the future. > > When the motion was re-submitted to the December meeting, I do not believe that there was any procedure to guide the Council on the re-introduction of a motion that had recently been voted on. > > This specific issue has highlighted that we may need something to guide us on this in future. I do not believe that the SCI?s hands are tied at all. > > We have one useful example which raised concerns and now need to look at as general solution as possible for the future in order to cover both the example that raised the concern and other cases which may occur in future. > > Thanks, > > > Jonathan > > 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: 09 January 2013 16:58 > To: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Cc: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in this specific instance: > > - the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on. > > - just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors were not aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they should be as it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a re-introduction of something that was properly introduced and voted on. > > - In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had given instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did not, the fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO rules, and if a constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the time to discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a motion (again, one properly introduced, seconded and voted on). > > - In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and referred the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion (without necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI before re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands are somewhat tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through - the mind boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and vote was improper or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive context within which ICANN is operating. > > 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 > > >>> Avri Doria 01/09/13 2:01 PM >>> > > Another thought experiment. > > There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG Policy Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, some voters got confused and voted against. > > Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote? > > Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to just reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and perhaps even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote? > > A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency beleive that its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be able to have a vote rescheduled at the next meeting? > > avri > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > > Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can be reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on reconsideration in the ByLaws. > > > > One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that one of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case it was the Chair who had been on the losing side. > > > > We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done. > > > > avri > > > > > > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote: > > > >> I tend to agree, > >> > >> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; > >> To: 'Avri Doria' ; Jeff Neuman ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; > >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson ; > >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM > >> > >> > >> Hi all, > >> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" type inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going to discuss tomorrow. > > > > the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated. > > > >> > >> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can provide prior to our call. > > > > It is all in the g-counci Procedures. > > And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions already made. > > > > > >> > >> 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 the original message. > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM > >> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson > >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >> > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I guess I do not support that. > >> > >> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should have past. > >> > >> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. > >> > >> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. > >> > >> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an NCUC based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go her way. > >> > >> avri > >> > >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Avri, > >>> > >>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did not happen. > >>> > >>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> > >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman > >>> > >>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] > >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time > >>> To: Neuman, Jeff > >>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson > >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that is not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion has passed or not. > >>> > >>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the reality of the situation. > >>> > >>> avri > >>> > >>> > >>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on consensus. > >>>> > >>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a second measurement of consensus is not an issue. > >>>> > >>>> Best regards, > >>>> > >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman > >>>> > >>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time > >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff > >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two remedies were possible. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and accountability. > >>>> > >>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. > >>>> > >>>> avri > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ---------------------- > >> 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 > >> > > > > > > > -- > 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. > > > > > -- > 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. > From randruff at rnapartners.com Thu Jan 17 16:10:04 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:10:04 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task - Councilor Training In-Reply-To: <0BA6E342-3061-4876-8A2A-FEE5C9536A74@acm.org> Message-ID: <44BDD75B2CF64B75A1F08F689A35A56B@ron> Dear all, The question of what is the SCI remit and what is not must always be considered, but it should not be used as a tool to inhibit a broad discussion around any issue that comes before us. I don't think anyone on this Committee is suggesting that we become a drafting team for the suggested primer. That is a matter to be taken up at Council level, in response to our recommendations. What is being said - and this goes to the point of Avri's post below - is that training for new councilors is now an absolute must as ICANN matures. The SCI cannot and must not ignore the importance of getting this training element enshrined in the GNSO Council best practices to educate and ensure that future Councilors do not find themselves ignorant of the ground rules that govern their actions. This is even more important, as Avri notes below, for NCA appointees. I won't opine on Avri's comments as to why this has yet to be put in place, but I do feel strongly that it is time to get this sorted once and for all. Therefore, I don't see any reason as to why the SCI should not make a training/primer program for GNSO Councilors part of our recommendations to Council in our response to the issue of re-voting a motion. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 8:15 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task - Councilor Training Hi, Since I was first aded to the g-cpuncil way back when, people have talk about training for new council members. Glad to see that old ideas never die. - I think it is out of scope for this group. We are responsible for looking at the rules themselves. Not how a council members becomes educated in those rules. - I am sure that too many council members would be too busy or too intelligent to bother taking the course or learn anything from them. they are not that hard or long to read and the staff has done a good job of creating information pieces. Anyone who is smart enough to be on the council can learn the rules if they wish to learn the rules. Plus except for NCAs, any new council member have the senior council members form their Constituency/SG to epxlain things to them form their C/SG's perspective. - there is a major education effort elsewhere in ICANN. It is bogged down in politics, because no one can agree on the content and the identity of the teachers. We do not trust each other enough to allow someone from the other side, or even staff, to do the teaching. avri On 15 Jan 2013, at 17:23, Ron Andruff wrote: > Dear all, > > I think that the concept of providing a new councilor primer is an excellent idea and one that we should give more thought to. Indeed, if all new Councilors are provided with a briefing on their mandate, documents that they should review, etc. that would serve the ICANN community and its various constituencies well. Moreover, a neutral presentation of roles/responsibilities and what is expected of them, may go further to assist new councilors in learning how to find consensus. Something we can all agree has been lacking in the trench warfare that we have seen in Council over the years. > > Thanks to Jennifer and Anne for bringing this idea forward. Let?s explore this further. > > 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 Aikman-Scalese, Anne > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 2:41 PM > To: 'Alain Berranger'; Jen Wolfe > Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > Hi all, > I find myself a bit more concerned about the possible effect of such a rule on quashing motions for reconsideration. There may even be changed circumstances that might justify reconsideration and one would not want to make a rule that no motion that has previously been voted upon can be brought before the Council again. > > I also tend to wonder whether a Councilor, especially a newer Councilor, laboring under a misimpression about the conflict of interest rules, might not, in itself, constitute a changed circumstance. Maybe I am less critical because the Councilor in question is an IPC Councilor and also a very good lawyer. If he was confused about this, I consider it possible that anyone might be. So I tend to disagree that if the Councilor in question had been NCSG, that there would have been a uproar about the change in vote (or at least there shouldn't be in an ideal ICANN world). > > There is an aspect of this which for me involves "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." So it seems that if we say this is okay the way it happened, the same leniency is given going forward to any Councilor who labors under a misunderstanding of Council rules, subject perhaps to the discretion of the Chair in bringing the motion again. > > The harder line would be: "Dear Councilor: You are responsible for knowing all the rules before you vote and no misunderstanding on your part as to any issue can serve as a basis for resubmission of a motion." If we go this route, new Councilors should definitely be trained accordingly. Do new GNSO Councilors receive training and orientation as is the norm for most Boards? > Anne > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese > Of Counsel > Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700 > One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > Tel (520) 629-4428 ? Fax (520) 879-4725 > AAikman at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman > > P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. > This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information > intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. > If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the > agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are > hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or > copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication > was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. > > > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alain Berranger > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11:26 AM > To: Jen Wolfe > Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > Thanks Jennifer, > > Common sense speaks again! The black belt argument will often close a discussion, though!!!! ;-) Many involved with ICANN would likely benefit from six sigma training... including myself! > > Let's see what the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements Implementation I discussions will lead too. > > Cheers, Alain > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Jen Wolfe wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I hope your new year is off to a great start. I know I am new to the council and this committee so forgive me if I am misunderstanding our role, but what confused me about this particular issue was that all of the councilors had the opportunity for discussion, to ask questions and for consensus. A vote was taken and then a councilor asked further clarifying questions and then wanted to change his vote. From a strictly process standpoint, I am not clear on why a new vote should be allowed once the time for discussion and clarifying questions close. In any other parliamentary procedure, legislative body or corporate governance on boards, once a vote is taken, that?s it, even if someone misunderstood something procedurally or substantively. > > I fully understand the need for consensus, but once discussion closes and a vote is taken, from a process and procedural standpoint, it?s a slippery slope to start allowing votes to be re-opened because one person asked a clarifying question after the vote was taken. It not only takes up valuable time of the council in discussing new issues, but could be used inappropriately in the future if this were permissible. > > I look forward to participating in this committee. I have a black belt in six sigma process improvement and pride myself on finding ways to function more efficiently and hope I can provide meaningful contributions to this committee. > > Have a great weekend! > > JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB > MANAGING DIRECTOR, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADIVSORY FIRM > MANAGING PARTNER, WOLFE, SADLER, BREEN, MORASCH & COLBY, AN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW FIRM > IAM 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011 & 2012 > Follow Me: > Blog: What will you do when your CEO asks why you didn?t apply for a gTLD? > > Book: Domain Names Rewired > > > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:05 PM > To: Alain Berranger; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu > Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > All, > > I am still missing the rationale as to why the NCSG representatives believe this rule should be in place for a bottom-up consensus driven organization. > > Please help me understand. > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs > > > From: Alain Berranger [mailto:alain.berranger at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:01 PM > To: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu > Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Neuman, Jeff > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > > I agree fully with Mary's arguments. > > Best, Alain > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:16 PM, wrote: > Thanks, Jonathan and Jeff. As I won't be on the SCI call this week, my view, FWIW, is that a motion that is properly introduced, seconded and voted on should NOT be re-introduced (whether in its original form or tweaked) in the absence of clear evidence indicating fraud, duress or other similar circumstance surrounding the original introduction/seconding/vote in relation to the motion. In this regard, Councilors' ignorance of the rules (e.g. effect of an abstention), and lack of instruction/direction from a Councilor's particular constituency/SG, should NOT count as the type of circumstance that ought to permit a reintroduction or re-vote on what in substance is the same motion. > > > 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 > > >>> "Jonathan Robinson" 01/10/13 1:12 AM >>> > All, > > My understanding of the role of the SCI is to determine how improvements may be made for the future. > > When the motion was re-submitted to the December meeting, I do not believe that there was any procedure to guide the Council on the re-introduction of a motion that had recently been voted on. > > This specific issue has highlighted that we may need something to guide us on this in future. I do not believe that the SCI?s hands are tied at all. > > We have one useful example which raised concerns and now need to look at as general solution as possible for the future in order to cover both the example that raised the concern and other cases which may occur in future. > > Thanks, > > > Jonathan > > 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: 09 January 2013 16:58 > To: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Cc: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in this specific instance: > > - the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on. > > - just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors were not aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they should be as it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a re-introduction of something that was properly introduced and voted on. > > - In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had given instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did not, the fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO rules, and if a constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the time to discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a motion (again, one properly introduced, seconded and voted on). > > - In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and referred the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion (without necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI before re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands are somewhat tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through - the mind boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and vote was improper or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive context within which ICANN is operating. > > 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 > > >>> Avri Doria 01/09/13 2:01 PM >>> > > Another thought experiment. > > There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG Policy Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, some voters got confused and voted against. > > Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote? > > Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to just reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and perhaps even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote? > > A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency beleive that its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be able to have a vote rescheduled at the next meeting? > > avri > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > > Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can be reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on reconsideration in the ByLaws. > > > > One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that one of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case it was the Chair who had been on the losing side. > > > > We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done. > > > > avri > > > > > > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote: > > > >> I tend to agree, > >> > >> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; > >> To: 'Avri Doria' ; Jeff Neuman ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; > >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson ; > >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM > >> > >> > >> Hi all, > >> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" type inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going to discuss tomorrow. > > > > the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated. > > > >> > >> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can provide prior to our call. > > > > It is all in the g-counci Procedures. > > And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions already made. > > > > > >> > >> 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 the original message. > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM > >> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson > >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >> > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I guess I do not support that. > >> > >> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should have past. > >> > >> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. > >> > >> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. > >> > >> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an NCUC based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go her way. > >> > >> avri > >> > >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Avri, > >>> > >>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did not happen. > >>> > >>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> > >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman > >>> > >>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] > >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time > >>> To: Neuman, Jeff > >>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson > >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that is not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion has passed or not. > >>> > >>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the reality of the situation. > >>> > >>> avri > >>> > >>> > >>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on consensus. > >>>> > >>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a second measurement of consensus is not an issue. > >>>> > >>>> Best regards, > >>>> > >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman > >>>> > >>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time > >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff > >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two remedies were possible. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and accountability. > >>>> > >>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. > >>>> > >>>> avri > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ---------------------- > >> 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 > >> > > > > > > > -- > 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. > > > > > -- > 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. > From AAikman at lrlaw.com Thu Jan 17 16:17:10 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:17:10 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task - Councilor Training In-Reply-To: <44BDD75B2CF64B75A1F08F689A35A56B@ron> References: <0BA6E342-3061-4876-8A2A-FEE5C9536A74@acm.org> <44BDD75B2CF64B75A1F08F689A35A56B@ron> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9602C7109@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Strongly agree with these observations Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP . Suite 700 One South Church Avenue . Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 . Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman at LRLaw.com . www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 9:10 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task - Councilor Training Dear all, The question of what is the SCI remit and what is not must always be considered, but it should not be used as a tool to inhibit a broad discussion around any issue that comes before us. I don't think anyone on this Committee is suggesting that we become a drafting team for the suggested primer. That is a matter to be taken up at Council level, in response to our recommendations. What is being said - and this goes to the point of Avri's post below - is that training for new councilors is now an absolute must as ICANN matures. The SCI cannot and must not ignore the importance of getting this training element enshrined in the GNSO Council best practices to educate and ensure that future Councilors do not find themselves ignorant of the ground rules that govern their actions. This is even more important, as Avri notes below, for NCA appointees. I won't opine on Avri's comments as to why this has yet to be put in place, but I do feel strongly that it is time to get this sorted once and for all. Therefore, I don't see any reason as to why the SCI should not make a training/primer program for GNSO Councilors part of our recommendations to Council in our response to the issue of re-voting a motion. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 8:15 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task - Councilor Training Hi, Since I was first aded to the g-cpuncil way back when, people have talk about training for new council members. Glad to see that old ideas never die. - I think it is out of scope for this group. We are responsible for looking at the rules themselves. Not how a council members becomes educated in those rules. - I am sure that too many council members would be too busy or too intelligent to bother taking the course or learn anything from them. they are not that hard or long to read and the staff has done a good job of creating information pieces. Anyone who is smart enough to be on the council can learn the rules if they wish to learn the rules. Plus except for NCAs, any new council member have the senior council members form their Constituency/SG to epxlain things to them form their C/SG's perspective. - there is a major education effort elsewhere in ICANN. It is bogged down in politics, because no one can agree on the content and the identity of the teachers. We do not trust each other enough to allow someone from the other side, or even staff, to do the teaching. avri On 15 Jan 2013, at 17:23, Ron Andruff wrote: > Dear all, > > I think that the concept of providing a new councilor primer is an excellent idea and one that we should give more thought to. Indeed, if all new Councilors are provided with a briefing on their mandate, documents that they should review, etc. that would serve the ICANN community and its various constituencies well. Moreover, a neutral presentation of roles/responsibilities and what is expected of them, may go further to assist new councilors in learning how to find consensus. Something we can all agree has been lacking in the trench warfare that we have seen in Council over the years. > > Thanks to Jennifer and Anne for bringing this idea forward. Let's > explore this further. > > 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 Aikman-Scalese, Anne > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 2:41 PM > To: 'Alain Berranger'; Jen Wolfe > Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > Hi all, > I find myself a bit more concerned about the possible effect of such a rule on quashing motions for reconsideration. There may even be changed circumstances that might justify reconsideration and one would not want to make a rule that no motion that has previously been voted upon can be brought before the Council again. > > I also tend to wonder whether a Councilor, especially a newer > Councilor, laboring under a misimpression about the conflict of interest rules, might not, in itself, constitute a changed circumstance. Maybe I am less critical because the Councilor in question is an IPC Councilor and also a very good lawyer. If he was confused about this, I consider it possible that anyone might be. So I tend to disagree that if the Councilor in question had been NCSG, that there would have been a uproar about the change in vote (or at least there shouldn't be in an ideal ICANN world). > > There is an aspect of this which for me involves "Do unto others as > you would have others do unto you." So it seems that if we say this is okay the way it happened, the same leniency is given going forward to any Councilor who labors under a misunderstanding of Council rules, subject perhaps to the discretion of the Chair in bringing the motion again. > > The harder line would be: "Dear Councilor: You are responsible for knowing all the rules before you vote and no misunderstanding on your part as to any issue can serve as a basis for resubmission of a motion." If we go this route, new Councilors should definitely be trained accordingly. Do new GNSO Councilors receive training and orientation as is the norm for most Boards? > Anne > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese > Of Counsel > Lewis and Roca LLP . Suite 700 > One South Church Avenue . Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) > 629-4428 . Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman at LRLaw.com . > www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman > > P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. > This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information > intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. > If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the > agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are > hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or > copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication > was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. > > > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alain Berranger > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11:26 AM > To: Jen Wolfe > Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > Thanks Jennifer, > > Common sense speaks again! The black belt argument will often close a discussion, though!!!! ;-) Many involved with ICANN would likely benefit from six sigma training... including myself! > > Let's see what the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements > Implementation I discussions will lead too. > > Cheers, Alain > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Jen Wolfe wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I hope your new year is off to a great start. I know I am new to the council and this committee so forgive me if I am misunderstanding our role, but what confused me about this particular issue was that all of the councilors had the opportunity for discussion, to ask questions and for consensus. A vote was taken and then a councilor asked further clarifying questions and then wanted to change his vote. From a strictly process standpoint, I am not clear on why a new vote should be allowed once the time for discussion and clarifying questions close. In any other parliamentary procedure, legislative body or corporate governance on boards, once a vote is taken, that's it, even if someone misunderstood something procedurally or substantively. > > I fully understand the need for consensus, but once discussion closes > and a vote is taken, from a process and procedural standpoint, it's a slippery slope to start allowing votes to be re-opened because one person asked a clarifying question after the vote was taken. It not only takes up valuable time of the council in discussing new issues, but could be used inappropriately in the future if this were permissible. > > I look forward to participating in this committee. I have a black > belt in six sigma process improvement and pride myself on finding ways to function more efficiently and hope I can provide meaningful contributions to this committee. > > Have a great weekend! > > JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB > MANAGING DIRECTOR, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADIVSORY > FIRM MANAGING PARTNER, WOLFE, SADLER, BREEN, MORASCH & COLBY, AN > INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW FIRM > IAM 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011 & 2012 Follow Me: > > Blog: What will you do when your CEO asks why you didn't apply for a gTLD? > > Book: Domain Names Rewired > > > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:05 PM > To: Alain Berranger; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu > Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > All, > > I am still missing the rationale as to why the NCSG representatives believe this rule should be in place for a bottom-up consensus driven organization. > > Please help me understand. > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs > > > From: Alain Berranger [mailto:alain.berranger at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:01 PM > To: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu > Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Neuman, Jeff > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > > I agree fully with Mary's arguments. > > Best, Alain > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:16 PM, wrote: > Thanks, Jonathan and Jeff. As I won't be on the SCI call this week, my view, FWIW, is that a motion that is properly introduced, seconded and voted on should NOT be re-introduced (whether in its original form or tweaked) in the absence of clear evidence indicating fraud, duress or other similar circumstance surrounding the original introduction/seconding/vote in relation to the motion. In this regard, Councilors' ignorance of the rules (e.g. effect of an abstention), and lack of instruction/direction from a Councilor's particular constituency/SG, should NOT count as the type of circumstance that ought to permit a reintroduction or re-vote on what in substance is the same motion. > > > 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 > > >>> "Jonathan Robinson" 01/10/13 1:12 AM >>> > All, > > My understanding of the role of the SCI is to determine how > improvements may be made for the future. > > When the motion was re-submitted to the December meeting, I do not > believe that there was any procedure to guide the Council on the re-introduction of a motion that had recently been voted on. > > This specific issue has highlighted that we may need something to > guide us on this in future. I do not believe that the SCI?s hands are tied at all. > > We have one useful example which raised concerns and now need to look > at as general solution as possible for the future in order to cover both the example that raised the concern and other cases which may occur in future. > > Thanks, > > > Jonathan > > 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: 09 January 2013 16:58 > To: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Cc: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in this specific instance: > > - the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on. > > - just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors > were not aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they should be as it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a re-introduction of something that was properly introduced and voted on. > > - In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had given instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did not, the fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO rules, and if a constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the time to discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a motion (again, one properly introduced, seconded and voted on). > > - In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and referred the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion (without necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI before re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands are somewhat tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through - the mind boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and vote was improper or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive context within which ICANN is operating. > > 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 > > >>> Avri Doria 01/09/13 2:01 PM >>> > > Another thought experiment. > > There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG > Policy Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, some voters got confused and voted against. > > Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote? > > Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to > just reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and perhaps even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote? > > A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency > beleive that its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be able to have a vote rescheduled at the next meeting? > > avri > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > > Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can > > be reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on reconsideration in the ByLaws. > > > > One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that > > one of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case it was the Chair who had been on the losing side. > > > > We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done. > > > > avri > > > > > > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote: > > > >> I tend to agree, > >> > >> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; > >> To: 'Avri Doria' ; Jeff Neuman > >> ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; > >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson ; > >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM > >> > >> > >> Hi all, > >> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" > >> type inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going to discuss tomorrow. > > > > the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated. > > > >> > >> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the > >> GNSO Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can provide prior to our call. > > > > It is all in the g-counci Procedures. > > And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions already made. > > > > > >> > >> 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 > >> the original message. > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM > >> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson > >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >> > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I guess I do not support that. > >> > >> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should have past. > >> > >> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. > >> > >> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that > >> should never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. > >> > >> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an > >> NCUC based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go her way. > >> > >> avri > >> > >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Avri, > >>> > >>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, > >>> the spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did not happen. > >>> > >>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is > >>> evidence of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> > >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman > >>> > >>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] > >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time > >>> To: Neuman, Jeff > >>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson > >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but > >>> that is not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion has passed or not. > >>> > >>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the reality of the situation. > >>> > >>> avri > >>> > >>> > >>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not > >>>> supposed to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on consensus. > >>>> > >>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a second measurement of consensus is not an issue. > >>>> > >>>> Best regards, > >>>> > >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman > >>>> > >>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time > >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff > >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors > >>>>> to vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two remedies were possible. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case > >>>> when it is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and accountability. > >>>> > >>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. > >>>> > >>>> avri > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ---------------------- > >> 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 > >> > > > > > > > -- > 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. > > > > > -- > 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. > From alain.berranger at gmail.com Thu Jan 17 16:19:08 2013 From: alain.berranger at gmail.com (Alain Berranger) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:19:08 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task - Councilor Training In-Reply-To: <44BDD75B2CF64B75A1F08F689A35A56B@ron> References: <0BA6E342-3061-4876-8A2A-FEE5C9536A74@acm.org> <44BDD75B2CF64B75A1F08F689A35A56B@ron> Message-ID: Dear all, I agree. Alain On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Ron Andruff wrote: > > Dear all, > > The question of what is the SCI remit and what is not must always be > considered, but it should not be used as a tool to inhibit a broad > discussion around any issue that comes before us. I don't think anyone on > this Committee is suggesting that we become a drafting team for the > suggested primer. That is a matter to be taken up at Council level, in > response to our recommendations. > > What is being said - and this goes to the point of Avri's post below - is > that training for new councilors is now an absolute must as ICANN matures. > The SCI cannot and must not ignore the importance of getting this training > element enshrined in the GNSO Council best practices to educate and ensure > that future Councilors do not find themselves ignorant of the ground rules > that govern their actions. This is even more important, as Avri notes > below, for NCA appointees. > > I won't opine on Avri's comments as to why this has yet to be put in place, > but I do feel strongly that it is time to get this sorted once and for all. > Therefore, I don't see any reason as to why the SCI should not make a > training/primer program for GNSO Councilors part of our recommendations to > Council in our response to the issue of re-voting a motion. > > Kind regards, > > RA > > Ronald N. Andruff > > RNA Partners, Inc. > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 8:15 AM > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task - Councilor Training > > > Hi, > > Since I was first aded to the g-cpuncil way back when, people have talk > about training for new council members. Glad to see that old ideas never > die. > > - I think it is out of scope for this group. We are responsible for > looking > at the rules themselves. Not how a council members becomes educated in > those rules. > > - I am sure that too many council members would be too busy or too > intelligent to bother taking the course or learn anything from them. they > are not that hard or long to read and the staff has done a good job of > creating information pieces. Anyone who is smart enough to be on the > council can learn the rules if they wish to learn the rules. Plus except > for NCAs, any new council member have the senior council members form their > Constituency/SG to epxlain things to them form their C/SG's perspective. > > - there is a major education effort elsewhere in ICANN. It is bogged down > in politics, because no one can agree on the content and the identity of > the > teachers. We do not trust each other enough to allow someone from the > other > side, or even staff, to do the teaching. > > avri > > > > On 15 Jan 2013, at 17:23, Ron Andruff wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > I think that the concept of providing a new councilor primer is an > excellent idea and one that we should give more thought to. Indeed, if all > new Councilors are provided with a briefing on their mandate, documents > that > they should review, etc. that would serve the ICANN community and its > various constituencies well. Moreover, a neutral presentation of > roles/responsibilities and what is expected of them, may go further to > assist new councilors in learning how to find consensus. Something we can > all agree has been lacking in the trench warfare that we have seen in > Council over the years. > > > > Thanks to Jennifer and Anne for bringing this idea forward. Let?s > explore > this further. > > > > 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 > Aikman-Scalese, > Anne > > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 2:41 PM > > To: 'Alain Berranger'; Jen Wolfe > > Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > > > Hi all, > > I find myself a bit more concerned about the possible effect of such a > rule on quashing motions for reconsideration. There may even be changed > circumstances that might justify reconsideration and one would not want to > make a rule that no motion that has previously been voted upon can be > brought before the Council again. > > > > I also tend to wonder whether a Councilor, especially a newer Councilor, > laboring under a misimpression about the conflict of interest rules, might > not, in itself, constitute a changed circumstance. Maybe I am less > critical > because the Councilor in question is an IPC Councilor and also a very good > lawyer. If he was confused about this, I consider it possible that anyone > might be. So I tend to disagree that if the Councilor in question had been > NCSG, that there would have been a uproar about the change in vote (or at > least there shouldn't be in an ideal ICANN world). > > > > There is an aspect of this which for me involves "Do unto others as you > would have others do unto you." So it seems that if we say this is okay > the > way it happened, the same leniency is given going forward to any Councilor > who labors under a misunderstanding of Council rules, subject perhaps to > the > discretion of the Chair in bringing the motion again. > > > > The harder line would be: "Dear Councilor: You are responsible for > knowing all the rules before you vote and no misunderstanding on your part > as to any issue can serve as a basis for resubmission of a motion." If we > go this route, new Councilors should definitely be trained accordingly. Do > new GNSO Councilors receive training and orientation as is the norm for > most > Boards? > > Anne > > > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese > > Of Counsel > > Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700 > > One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > > Tel (520) 629-4428 ? Fax (520) 879-4725 > > AAikman at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman > > > > P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. > > This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information > > intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. > > If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the > > agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are > > hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or > > copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication > > was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the > original message. > > > > > > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alain > Berranger > > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11:26 AM > > To: Jen Wolfe > > Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > > > Thanks Jennifer, > > > > Common sense speaks again! The black belt argument will often close a > discussion, though!!!! ;-) Many involved with ICANN would likely benefit > from six sigma training... including myself! > > > > Let's see what the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements Implementation > I discussions will lead too. > > > > Cheers, Alain > > > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Jen Wolfe > wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > I hope your new year is off to a great start. I know I am new to the > council and this committee so forgive me if I am misunderstanding our role, > but what confused me about this particular issue was that all of the > councilors had the opportunity for discussion, to ask questions and for > consensus. A vote was taken and then a councilor asked further clarifying > questions and then wanted to change his vote. From a strictly process > standpoint, I am not clear on why a new vote should be allowed once the > time > for discussion and clarifying questions close. In any other parliamentary > procedure, legislative body or corporate governance on boards, once a vote > is taken, that?s it, even if someone misunderstood something procedurally > or > substantively. > > > > I fully understand the need for consensus, but once discussion closes and > a vote is taken, from a process and procedural standpoint, it?s a slippery > slope to start allowing votes to be re-opened because one person asked a > clarifying question after the vote was taken. It not only takes up > valuable > time of the council in discussing new issues, but could be used > inappropriately in the future if this were permissible. > > > > I look forward to participating in this committee. I have a black belt > in > six sigma process improvement and pride myself on finding ways to function > more efficiently and hope I can provide meaningful contributions to this > committee. > > > > Have a great weekend! > > > > JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB > > MANAGING DIRECTOR, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADIVSORY FIRM > > MANAGING PARTNER, WOLFE, SADLER, BREEN, MORASCH & COLBY, AN INTELLECTUAL > PROPERTY LAW FIRM > > IAM 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011 & 2012 > > Follow Me: > > Blog: What will you do when your CEO asks why you didn?t apply for a > gTLD? > > > > Book: Domain Names Rewired > > > > > > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff > > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:05 PM > > To: Alain Berranger; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu > > Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > > > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > > > All, > > > > I am still missing the rationale as to why the NCSG representatives > believe this rule should be in place for a bottom-up consensus driven > organization. > > > > Please help me understand. > > > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs > > > > > > From: Alain Berranger [mailto:alain.berranger at gmail.com] > > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:01 PM > > To: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu > > Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; > jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Neuman, Jeff > > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > > > > > I agree fully with Mary's arguments. > > > > Best, Alain > > > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:16 PM, wrote: > > Thanks, Jonathan and Jeff. As I won't be on the SCI call this week, my > view, FWIW, is that a motion that is properly introduced, seconded and > voted > on should NOT be re-introduced (whether in its original form or tweaked) in > the absence of clear evidence indicating fraud, duress or other similar > circumstance surrounding the original introduction/seconding/vote in > relation to the motion. In this regard, Councilors' ignorance of the rules > (e.g. effect of an abstention), and lack of instruction/direction from a > Councilor's particular constituency/SG, should NOT count as the type of > circumstance that ought to permit a reintroduction or re-vote on what in > substance is the same motion. > > > > > > 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 > > > > >>> "Jonathan Robinson" 01/10/13 1:12 AM >>> > > All, > > > > My understanding of the role of the SCI is to determine how improvements > may be made for the future. > > > > When the motion was re-submitted to the December meeting, I do not > believe > that there was any procedure to guide the Council on the re-introduction of > a motion that had recently been voted on. > > > > This specific issue has highlighted that we may need something to guide > us > on this in future. I do not believe that the SCI?s hands are tied at all. > > > > We have one useful example which raised concerns and now need to look at > as general solution as possible for the future in order to cover both the > example that raised the concern and other cases which may occur in future. > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Jonathan > > > > 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: 09 January 2013 16:58 > > To: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > Cc: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us > > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > > > I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in this > specific instance: > > > > - the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on. > > > > - just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors > were > not aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they should > be as it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a re-introduction > of > something that was properly introduced and voted on. > > > > - In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had > given instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did > not, the fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO > rules, > and if a constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the time > to > discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a motion > (again, one properly introduced, seconded and voted on). > > > > - In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and > referred the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion > (without necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI > before re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands > are > somewhat tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through - > the mind boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and vote > was improper or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive > context within which ICANN is operating. > > > > 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 > > > > >>> Avri Doria 01/09/13 2:01 PM >>> > > > > Another thought experiment. > > > > There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG Policy > Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, > some voters got confused and voted against. > > > > Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote? > > > > Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to > just > reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and > perhaps > even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote? > > > > A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency > beleive > that its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be able to > have a vote rescheduled at the next meeting? > > > > avri > > > > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > > > > > Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can be > reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on > reconsideration in the ByLaws. > > > > > > One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that one > of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case > it > was the Chair who had been on the losing side. > > > > > > We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done. > > > > > > avri > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote: > > > > > >> I tend to agree, > > >> > > >> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; > > >> To: 'Avri Doria' ; Jeff Neuman >; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; > > >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson ; > > >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > >> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM > > >> > > >> > > >> Hi all, > > >> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" > type > inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit > a > motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how > obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going > to discuss tomorrow. > > > > > > the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated. > > > > > >> > > >> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO > Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can > provide prior to our call. > > > > > > It is all in the g-counci Procedures. > > > And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions > already made. > > > > > > > > >> > > >> 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 the > original message. > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > > >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM > > >> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson > > >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > >> > > >> > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> I guess I do not support that. > > >> > > >> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it > back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should > have > past. > > >> > > >> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for > motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has > NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of > the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. > > >> > > >> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should > never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair > from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination > of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. > > >> > > >> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an > NCUC > based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go > her way. > > >> > > >> avri > > >> > > >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > > >> > > >>> > > >>> Avri, > > >>> > > >>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the > spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two > votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some > evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did > not happen. > > >>> > > >>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence > of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. > > >>> > > >>> Best regards, > > >>> > > >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman > > >>> > > >>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] > > >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time > > >>> To: Neuman, Jeff > > >>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson > > >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > >>> > > >>> Hi, > > >>> > > >>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that > is > not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG > at > the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the Board > for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure that > the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion > has > passed or not. > > >>> > > >>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the > reality of the situation. > > >>> > > >>> avri > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> > > >>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed > to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on > items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given > policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group > making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last > evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as > supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over > again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on > consensus. > > >>>> > > >>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the > result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that > ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to > be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and > unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse > within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence > that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, > harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a > second measurement of consensus is not an issue. > > >>>> > > >>>> Best regards, > > >>>> > > >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman > > >>>> > > >>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] > > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time > > >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > >>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff > > >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to > vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), > two remedies were possible. > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when > it > is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and > accountability. > > >>>> > > >>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to > make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my > stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they > should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If > it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida > was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore > would > have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our hearts > that > it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work according to > wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. > > >>>> > > >>>> avri > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ---------------------- > > >> 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 > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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. > > > > > > -- 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 avri at acm.org Thu Jan 17 19:09:46 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:09:46 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task - Councilor Training In-Reply-To: <44BDD75B2CF64B75A1F08F689A35A56B@ron> References: <44BDD75B2CF64B75A1F08F689A35A56B@ron> Message-ID: <6311F011-8201-43C4-902C-E9EF85A6D6FD@acm.org> On 17 Jan 2013, at 11:10, Ron Andruff wrote: > Therefore, I don't see any reason as to why the SCI should not make a > training/primer program for GNSO Councilors part of our recommendations to > Council in our response to the issue of re-voting a motion. I do. a. I do not think it is in purview, even though you wish to talk about it. I have no problem discussing it. I am against making a recommendation. b. Training is already being worked on, including for g-council members, as I mentioned. So getting us involved in something that is not our business that is being worked on elsewhere is not something I can accept making a recommendation on. avri From julie.hedlund at icann.org Thu Jan 17 22:54:18 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:54:18 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER: ACTION REQUESTED: Draft Survey for GNSO Working Groups In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Below is a link to a Draft Survey for GNSO Working Groups. As we discussed on our call on 20 December, the SCI members who have not already done so are requested to read the Working Group Guidelines (see link also below), take the survey, and provide comments on how the survey can be improved. We've had 8 responses to the survey thus far. We have 9 Primary Members of the SCI and 8 Alternate Members. The survey does not collect the names of the responders so I cannot tell who has responded. However, ideally all Primary Members should respond. If you have not done so, please respond. Link to the Working Group Guidelines: http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf Link to the Guidelines Summary: http://gnso.icann.org/council/summary-gnso-wg-guidelines-06apr11-en.pdf Link to Draft Survey for GNSO Working Groups: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FFTCJPT Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marika.konings at icann.org Mon Jan 21 10:02:41 2013 From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 02:02:41 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Agenda for SCI Meeting 09 January In-Reply-To: <1357851836.34507.YahooMailNeo@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Thanks, J. Scott. However, in the revised version the recommendation of the WG for a termination or suspension no longer carries any specific weight. Was that intentional? With best regards, Marika From: "J. Scott Evans" Reply-To: "J. Scott Evans" Date: Thursday 10 January 2013 22:03 To: Marika Konings , "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" , Julie Hedlund , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Agenda for SCI Meeting 09 January Dear All: Taking into account Marika's comments on the rationale, I have deleted the sentence that requires a public comment when the termination or suspension is recommending by the Working Group. Will this work? J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com From: Marika Konings To: J. Scott Evans ; "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" ; Julie Hedlund ; "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 1:50 AM Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Agenda for SCI Meeting 09 January All, I noticed that the proposed language significantly changes the current language in relation to the termination of a PDP and I thought it may be helpful to explain the original rationale of the PDP-WT for its approach (and I'm sure Jeff and/or Avri who were part of the PDP-WT will chime in if I got it wrong). It concerns the proposed section that reads 'The Council is required to conduct a public comment forum seeking community input on the report first prior to conducting a vote'. In its current form, a public comment forum on the termination of a PDP is only required if there is no recommendation from the PDP WG for such termination. As discussed by the PDP WT at the time, the idea was that if there was consensus from the WG to terminate the PDP and supermajority support from the GNSO Council to do so, there would be no need for additional public comment. Only if there would not be support from the PDP WG to terminate the PDP, the Council would be required to conduct a public comment forum to obtain community input on whether or not to terminate the PDP. I hope this helps inform your discussions on this topic. With best regards, Marika From: "J. Scott Evans" Reply-To: "J. Scott Evans" Date: Wednesday 9 January 2013 22:56 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" , Julie Hedlund , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Agenda for SCI Meeting 09 January Anne, et. al. I have attached a recommend revision to the last paragraph. J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" To: 'Julie Hedlund' ; "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 8:07 PM Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Agenda for SCI Meeting 09 January Ron, Avri, et al, Attached please see the draft J. Scott and I put together regarding the requirement for a report on termation or suspension. This is for discussion under Item 6 of the agenda below. 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 Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 3:03 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Agenda for SCI Meeting 09 January Dear SCI members, On behalf of the SCI Chair and Vice Chair, Ron Andruff and Avri Doria, below is a proposed agenda for the SCI meeting tomorrow, Wednesday, 09 January 2013 at 2100 UTC> Please let us know if you have any questions, comments, or changes. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Agenda, SCI Meeting, Wednesday, 09 January 2013 at 2100 UTC 1. Roll call (1 min) 2. Statement of Interests (1 min) 3. Approval of the agenda (1 min) 4. Chair/Vice Chair elections and terms and SCI Charter changes (10 mins) 5. Action on Working Group survey (10 mins) 6. Termination and Suspension of a PDP (15 mins) 7. GNSO Council Liaison to the SCI (5 mins) 8. Whether the SCI should solicit work or take on work from the GNSO Council (5 mins) 9. Re-submitting a motion ? Background Discussion (10 mins) 10. AOB (2 mins) 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 randruff at rnapartners.com Mon Jan 21 17:37:33 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 12:37:33 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Preparing for our Wednesday call In-Reply-To: <44BDD75B2CF64B75A1F08F689A35A56B@ron> Message-ID: <02BDC4EBCA214CB693CF2E1D0A19FC1E@ron> Dear all, In preparation for our call this Wednesday, I would like to ask the members of the Committee to consider four things that I paraphrase below: 1. Individual review of the Survey that Julie reminded us about last week (intended to gain further insight into the quality of Working Groups efforts); 2. Consideration of J Scott's revisions on the matter of termination/suspension language that I would like to send back to Council following our Wednesday meeting; 3. Further consideration of the discussion around allowing or not allowing a motion to be revoted; 4. A tangential question to #3 above, i.e. whether it would be a helpful recommendation to encourage Council to (finally) formalize what I have referred to as a Primer for in-coming GNSO Councilors. Thank you in advance for your consideration of these points. I am hopeful that we can close out points 1 and 2 above, and make further progress on the last two during our up-coming call. The agenda will be forthcoming shortly. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. From julie.hedlund at icann.org Tue Jan 22 14:26:41 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 06:26:41 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revisions to the SCI Charter for Chair/Vice Chair Elections Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Please see draft language for proposed revisions to the SCI Charter to include provisions for Chair and Vice Chair elections. We will discuss these in our meeting tomorrow. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCI Charter Proposed Revision Chair-Vice Chair Elections 10 Jan 2013 - RA edits.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 20563 bytes Desc: SCI Charter Proposed Revision Chair-Vice Chair Elections 10 Jan 2013 - RA edits.docx URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Tue Jan 22 22:02:07 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 14:02:07 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Meeting: Proposed Agenda for 23 January 2013 Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Here is a proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting on behalf Ron Andruff and Avri Doria. Please let us know if you have any questions, comments, or changes. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Proposed Agenda for 23 January 2013: 1. Roll call (1 min) 2. Statements of Interest (1 min) 3. Approval of the agenda (1 min) 4. Chair/Vice Chair elections and terms and SCI Charter changes (10 mins) 5. Action on Working Group survey (10 mins) 6. Termination and Suspension of a PDP (15 mins) 7. GNSO Council Liaison to the SCI (10 mins) 8. Re-submitting a motion (10 mins) 9. AOB (2 mins) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de Wed Jan 23 19:47:29 2013 From: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 20:47:29 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Preparing for our Wednesday call In-Reply-To: <02BDC4EBCA214CB693CF2E1D0A19FC1E@ron> References: <02BDC4EBCA214CB693CF2E1D0A19FC1E@ron> Message-ID: All, I'll probably be late on the call since still being on Travel. Hopefully no delay. Wolf-Ulrich Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 21.01.2013 um 18:37 schrieb Ron Andruff : > > Dear all, > > In preparation for our call this Wednesday, I would like to ask the members > of the Committee to consider four things that I paraphrase below: > > 1. Individual review of the Survey that Julie reminded us about last week > (intended to gain further insight into the quality of Working Groups > efforts); > 2. Consideration of J Scott's revisions on the matter of > termination/suspension language that I would like to send back to Council > following our Wednesday meeting; > 3. Further consideration of the discussion around allowing or not allowing a > motion to be revoted; > 4. A tangential question to #3 above, i.e. whether it would be a helpful > recommendation to encourage Council to (finally) formalize what I have > referred to as a Primer for in-coming GNSO Councilors. > > Thank you in advance for your consideration of these points. I am hopeful > that we can close out points 1 and 2 above, and make further progress on the > last two during our up-coming call. > > The agenda will be forthcoming shortly. > > Kind regards, > > RA > > Ronald N. Andruff > > RNA Partners, Inc. > > From julie.hedlund at icann.org Wed Jan 23 22:08:29 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 14:08:29 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Actions from SCI Meeting 23 January 2013 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Below are the actions I captured from today's meeting. Please let me know of any comments or changes you may have. Our next meeting is scheduled in two weeks on Wednesday, 06 February 2013 at 21:00 UTC for 1 hour. A notice will be sent out with the call details. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions from SCI Meeting 23 January 2013 1. Chair/Vice Chair elections and terms and SCI Charter changes -- J.Scott agreed to produce some revised language re: the vice-chair term. 2. General Charter Changes -- Create a charter revision drafting team. 3. Working Group survey -- Review comments and questions; test the survey on a Working Group (IRTP) 4. Termination and Suspension of a PDP -- J.Scott will send revised language to the list. 5. Re-submitting a motion -- Mary Wong will lead a sub-group -- Avri, Thomas, Anne -- to develop some options over the next two meetings (tentative deadline 17 February) 6. GNSO Council Liaison -- Put higher on the agenda for the next meeting 7. Attendance lists on the wiki -- Staff will update -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jscottevans at yahoo.com Wed Jan 23 22:17:00 2013 From: jscottevans at yahoo.com (J. Scott Evans) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 14:17:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Chair/Vice Chair Elections language In-Reply-To: References: <1357851836.34507.YahooMailNeo@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1358979420.4203.YahooMailNeo@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Dear All: I have attached a revised version of the Charter amendments related to Chair and Vice Chair elections. ? 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: 22893 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avri at acm.org Wed Jan 23 22:40:04 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:40:04 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] On SCI consensus and impasse Message-ID: Hi, As I wrote in the Adobe chat, I strongly resist any attempt to change the SCI into a rough consensus group. I think it is important, as we saw with the PDP termination case, that some one holding out because they see a problem improves our product. Also, we do have a mechanism for getting around this. At any point, the SCI can make a consensus decision to go rough consensus. As someone who sometimes finds herself in a minority of one and in impasse with others in a group (happens in NCUC and NCSG too) I recognize that there are possible situations that would involve principles that could not be bridged. In such a circumstance, though, I can imagine being part of a consensus agreement to a rough consensus decision with dissenting opinion. The point, however, is that this has to be the exception and has to be agreed to by all. avri From jscottevans at yahoo.com Wed Jan 23 22:44:59 2013 From: jscottevans at yahoo.com (J. Scott Evans) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 14:44:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fw: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Chair/Vice Chair Elections language In-Reply-To: <668ED7B7C9554BA0A7F00F2255A235E6@ron> References: <1358979420.4203.YahooMailNeo@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <668ED7B7C9554BA0A7F00F2255A235E6@ron> Message-ID: <1358981099.91237.YahooMailNeo@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Ron: Before I make any changes, I want to make sure I am clear. ?I thought the idea is that the Chair and Vice Chair are elected annually but can only serve for 2 consecutive years any the same position. ?I did not think that the Chair and Vice Chair could opt for a second term and thereby eliminate the need for an election. ?If my understanding is incorrect, I am happy to revise. ?Do other people have a point of view on this issue? J. Scott ? j. scott evans - ?head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Ron Andruff To: 'J. Scott Evans' Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 2:31 PM Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Chair/Vice Chair Elections language Dear J Scott, ? The first sentence of the?is incongruous with the term stated further in the paragraph, i.e. if the Chair/V Chair?accept the option of?taking a second year, then there would be no election that December...? This needs some wordsmithing... ? In December of each year, the SCI should ask for volunteers from its primary members to serve as Chair.? ? The Chair and Vice Chair shall serve for a 1-year term with the option to continue for a second 1-year term.?? ? Thanks for taking this on. ? 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: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 5:17 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Chair/Vice Chair Elections language Dear All: I have attached a revised version of the Charter amendments related to Chair and Vice Chair elections. ? 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 AAikman at lrlaw.com Wed Jan 23 22:46:24 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:46:24 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Chair/Vice Chair Elections language In-Reply-To: <1358979420.4203.YahooMailNeo@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1357851836.34507.YahooMailNeo@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1358979420.4203.YahooMailNeo@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9602D6297@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Friendly amendment to J. Scott's changes shown below - redline attached, but it is a bit difficult to read so... Anne 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. In December of each year, the SCI will ask for volunteers from its primary members to serve as Chair. If there is more than one volunteer, the GNSO Secretariat will conduct an election via e-mail ballot and tally the results after one week. If there are only two candidates for Chair, 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. If there are more than two candidates for the Chair or multiple candidates for Vice Chair, the GNSO Secretariat will conduct a run-off election for Vice Chair via e-mail ballot and tally the results after one week. 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. [cid:100023422 at 23012013-27C7]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 J. Scott Evans Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 3:17 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Chair/Vice Chair Elections language Dear All: I have attached a revised version of the Charter amendments related to Chair and Vice Chair elections. j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com ________________________________ 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: att8282e.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: att8282e.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCI Charter Proposed Revision Chair-Vice Chair ElectionsJSE-AEAS.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 18373 bytes Desc: SCI Charter Proposed Revision Chair-Vice Chair ElectionsJSE-AEAS.docx URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Wed Jan 23 22:48:08 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:48:08 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Chair/Vice Chair Elections language In-Reply-To: <1358981099.91237.YahooMailNeo@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1358979420.4203.YahooMailNeo@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <668ED7B7C9554BA0A7F00F2255A235E6@ron> <1358981099.91237.YahooMailNeo@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9602D62CD@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> J. Scott, I think there was agreement that a sitting Chair may opt for a second term if willing to serve (no election). Anne [cid:433184722 at 23012013-27CE]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 J. Scott Evans Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 3:45 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Fw: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Chair/Vice Chair Elections language Ron: Before I make any changes, I want to make sure I am clear. I thought the idea is that the Chair and Vice Chair are elected annually but can only serve for 2 consecutive years any the same position. I did not think that the Chair and Vice Chair could opt for a second term and thereby eliminate the need for an election. If my understanding is incorrect, I am happy to revise. Do other people have a point of view on this issue? J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Ron Andruff To: 'J. Scott Evans' Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 2:31 PM Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Chair/Vice Chair Elections language Dear J Scott, The first sentence of the is incongruous with the term stated further in the paragraph, i.e. if the Chair/V Chair accept the option of taking a second year, then there would be no election that December... This needs some wordsmithing... In December of each year, the SCI should ask for volunteers from its primary members to serve as Chair. The Chair and Vice Chair shall serve for a 1-year term with the option to continue for a second 1-year term. Thanks for taking this on. 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: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 5:17 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Chair/Vice Chair Elections language Dear All: I have attached a revised version of the Charter amendments related to Chair and Vice Chair elections. j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com ________________________________ 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 Wed Jan 23 22:56:49 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:56:49 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Chair/Vice Chair Elections language In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9602D62CD@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: That is also my understanding, J Scott. 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 Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 5:48 PM To: 'J. Scott Evans'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Chair/Vice Chair Elections language J. Scott, I think there was agreement that a sitting Chair may opt for a second term if willing to serve (no election). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP . Suite 700 One South Church Avenue . Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 . Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman at LRLaw.com . www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. _____ 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: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 3:45 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Fw: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Chair/Vice Chair Elections language Ron: Before I make any changes, I want to make sure I am clear. I thought the idea is that the Chair and Vice Chair are elected annually but can only serve for 2 consecutive years any the same position. I did not think that the Chair and Vice Chair could opt for a second term and thereby eliminate the need for an election. If my understanding is incorrect, I am happy to revise. Do other people have a point of view on this issue? J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Ron Andruff To: 'J. Scott Evans' Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 2:31 PM Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Chair/Vice Chair Elections language Dear J Scott, The first sentence of the is incongruous with the term stated further in the paragraph, i.e. if the Chair/V Chair accept the option of taking a second year, then there would be no election that December... This needs some wordsmithing... In December of each year, the SCI should ask for volunteers from its primary members to serve as Chair. The Chair and Vice Chair shall serve for a 1-year term with the option to continue for a second 1-year term. Thanks for taking this on. 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: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 5:17 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Chair/Vice Chair Elections language Dear All: I have attached a revised version of the Charter amendments related to Chair and Vice Chair elections. j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com _____ 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 randruff at rnapartners.com Thu Jan 24 01:12:38 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 20:12:38 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] On SCI consensus and impasse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <9CD75C4F35B34EC3BFAB1920D82A433D@ron> Dear all, The impetus behind the recommendation to address using "full or unanimous consensus" and "rough or near consensus" comes from a need to review and update the SCI Charter , as well as the SCI wiki now that the Committee has two years experience. Apart from our Charter, the SCI is further governed by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (link found in Charter), so taking ten minutes to review them is a helpful exercise in this kind of discussion. I socialized these ideas today to give Committee members time to reflect and think about them so that we can come to a determination that is, by current Charter, full consensus. Avri is right in her comment that the manner in which the PDP termination case was dealt with "improves our product". That is an excellent example. As noted today, I share your pride of having a good end product for our efforts - completed in a way one could wish all of ICANN would become. One must also understand that an individual who stands in constant opposition is, in effect, capturing the process. Holding the working group hostage until that individual deems to be satisfied, while others are not, is inequitable. Hung juries provide no mutual equity. A balanced discussion will lead to better appreciation for each other's contributions and more confidence in both the Committee and the process, as a result. With five forms of consent defined in the Guidelines, rough or near consent (defined as "a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree") immediately follows full or unanimous consent. In my view, near consensus means that every Committee member has a right to stand firmly behind their stakeholder group's position - moreover present their rationale for decent in the public record; thus making it a better standard than we have today. All arguments are well-heard and documented; as opposed to the sad end to issues caught in deadlock. Two additional thoughts: 1. The Supreme Court of the United States hands down considered opinions, always allowing statements of decent. 2. The nature of human beings is that we will always find another interpretation to bring to the table if it fits our desires. Please review the embedded and suggested links as we dive deeper into this important discussion. Thank you. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 5:40 PM To: Gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] On SCI consensus and impasse Hi, As I wrote in the Adobe chat, I strongly resist any attempt to change the SCI into a rough consensus group. I think it is important, as we saw with the PDP termination case, that some one holding out because they see a problem improves our product. Also, we do have a mechanism for getting around this. At any point, the SCI can make a consensus decision to go rough consensus. As someone who sometimes finds herself in a minority of one and in impasse with others in a group (happens in NCUC and NCSG too) I recognize that there are possible situations that would involve principles that could not be bridged. In such a circumstance, though, I can imagine being part of a consensus agreement to a rough consensus decision with dissenting opinion. The point, however, is that this has to be the exception and has to be agreed to by all. avri -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jscottevans at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 01:39:07 2013 From: jscottevans at yahoo.com (J. Scott Evans) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:39:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Chair/Vice Chair Elections language In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9602D62CD@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <1358991547.54158.YahooMailNeo@web161006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Thanks Anne and Ron. ?I will revise accordingly. ? j. scott evans - ?head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com ________________________________ From: Ron Andruff To: "'Aikman-Scalese, Anne'" ; 'J. Scott Evans' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 2:56 PM Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Chair/Vice Chair Elections language That is also my understanding, J Scott.? ? 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 Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 5:48 PM To: 'J. Scott Evans'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Chair/Vice Chair Elections language J. Scott, I think there was agreement that a sitting Chair may opt for?a second term if willing to serve (no election).? 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 J. Scott Evans Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 3:45 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Fw: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Chair/Vice Chair Elections language Ron: Before I make any changes, I want to make sure I am clear. ?I thought the idea is that the Chair and Vice Chair are elected annually but can only serve for 2 consecutive years any the same position. ?I did not think that the Chair and Vice Chair could opt for a second term and thereby eliminate the need for an election. ?If my understanding is incorrect, I am happy to revise. ?Do other people have a point of view on this issue? J. Scott ? j. scott evans - ?head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Ron Andruff To: 'J. Scott Evans' Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 2:31 PM Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Chair/Vice Chair Elections language Dear J Scott, ? The first sentence of the?is incongruous with the term stated further in the paragraph, i.e. if the Chair/V Chair?accept the option of?taking a second year, then there would be no election that December...? This needs some wordsmithing... ? In December of each year, the SCI should ask for volunteers from its primary members to serve as Chair.? ? The Chair and Vice Chair shall serve for a 1-year term with the option to continue for a second 1-year term.?? ? Thanks for taking this on. ? 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: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 5:17 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Chair/Vice Chair Elections language Dear All: I have attached a revised version of the Charter amendments related to Chair and Vice Chair elections. ? j. scott evans - ?head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com ? ________________________________ 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 avri at acm.org Thu Jan 24 03:10:04 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:10:04 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] On SCI consensus and impasse In-Reply-To: <9CD75C4F35B34EC3BFAB1920D82A433D@ron> References: <9CD75C4F35B34EC3BFAB1920D82A433D@ron> Message-ID: <1F990DF0-A10D-4D4F-B8A4-8D183314B429@acm.org> On 23 Jan 2013, at 20:12, Ron Andruff wrote: > Holding the working group hostage until that individual deems to be satisfied, while others are not, is inequitable. Are you alluding to an specific example. I find your reference to members of the group holding other members hostage, somewhat problematic. In terms of the charter, while I am comfortable with cleanup, I am not comfortable with a re-write. avri From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Thu Jan 24 04:14:23 2013 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 20:14:23 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] MP3 recording of the SCI meeting - 23 January 2013 Message-ID: Dear All, The next meeting of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting will be held on Wednesday, 06 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, 23 January 2013 at 21:00UTC. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20130123-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#jan (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 Alain Berranger - NPOC - Primary Jennifer Wolfe - NCA primary Thomas Rickert - NCA - Alternate Mary Wong -NCUC - Alternate Apologies : none 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 23 January 2013: Julie Hedlund:Welcome to the meeting of the GNSO Standing Committee on Improvements (SCI) Julie Hedlund:23 January 2013 Thomas Rickert:Just joined. Hello everyone! Alain Berranger, NPOC:Greetings everyone! Julie Hedlund:The Vice Chair's term shall not be similarly limited, irrespective of whether the Vice Chair choses to stand for Chair in any one year. Mary Wong:Thanks, Julie - that's what I had in mind. Nathalie Peregrine:Jennifer Wolfe has joined the AC room Anne Aikman-Scalese: consider - should the vice chair choose to run for Chair, the Vice Chair's term limit shall not prohibit the Vice Chair from doing so. Nathalie Peregrine:Wolf Ulrich has joined the call Wolf Knoben:Hello together Avri Doria:I strongly object to eliminating the requirement for full consensus. Anne Aikman-Scalese:trying to achieve full consesus is much better Mary Wong:The tenth laggard was me :) Avri Doria:i did it so long ago, i don't remember. but i thnk i added comments to the survey itself Anne Aikman-Scalese: last time Avri raised an example of no working group having been formed and no WG was formed Julie Hedlund:I have the manual up Alain Berranger, NPOC:need to sign out, thanks Avri Doria:yes, it is the sing of consensus being necessary. toerhwsie we would have accepted something with a defect Avri Doria:ok, sign not sing. Anne Aikman-Scalese:agree with Avri Wolf Knoben:would be happy to hear you singing Anne Aikman-Scalese:I like "sing" Julie Hedlund:Note that because the changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures on suspention/termination of a PDP are substantive, once the SCI approves them they will need to go out for public comment Avri Doria:I think a correlate of Hard case makes bad law, is hard case makes dangerous precedent Mary Wong:@Ron, that's my "reward"? Pshaw :) Thomas Rickert:OK Avri Doria:sure Anne Aikman-Scalese: consider - If a motion is submitted and seconded which is identical to a motion previously defeated, then the Chair shall have discretion to allow vote o the identical motion IF (state conditions)? Nathalie Peregrine GNSO Secretariat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcole at 5x5com.com Thu Jan 24 12:30:22 2013 From: mcole at 5x5com.com (Mason Cole) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:30:22 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task - Councilor Training In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9602C7109@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> References: <0BA6E342-3061-4876-8A2A-FEE5C9536A74@acm.org> <44BDD75B2CF64B75A1F08F689A35A56B@ron> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9602C7109@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <02745432-2515-46B2-AFD0-AC98BB22DFDE@5x5com.com> All -- This is a good discussion and I appreciate seeing it expand. As a new vice chair of the council I can attest to the fact that council procedures are complex in places, but not too terribly hard to understand with a bit of study. I wouldn't object to an orientation for new councilors if we believe that would be helpful to each other and the community; however, nor would I say it's absolutely necessary. It's a reasonable expectation for new councilors to prepare themselves for their role. With regard to motions: In general I agree that it should not be permissible to re-introduce a motion already voted down, either the exact wording or something substantially the same and designed to achieve the same outcome. I don't know that this needs to be enshrined in procedure -- in the vote we're all referencing, I trust that Brian's situation was an honest error and not meant to disrupt council business. In cases such as this I'm not opposed to re-entertaining a motion when it's clear the issue is a simple misunderstanding and not an attempt to game the rules or beat into submission those who disagree with the proponents. I would hope councilors can discern between the two and honor good intentions. I don't believe in general that this has been a problem for the council. Should it become one, I would agree with updating procedure in some manner, but I don't think we're there (and hope we never get there). Mason On Jan 17, 2013, at 5:17 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > > Strongly agree with these observations > > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese > Of Counsel > Lewis and Roca LLP . Suite 700 > One South Church Avenue . Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > Tel (520) 629-4428 . Fax (520) 879-4725 > AAikman at LRLaw.com . www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman > P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. > This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information > intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. > If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the > agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are > hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or > copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication > was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 9:10 AM > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task - Councilor Training > > > Dear all, > > The question of what is the SCI remit and what is not must always be considered, but it should not be used as a tool to inhibit a broad discussion around any issue that comes before us. I don't think anyone on this Committee is suggesting that we become a drafting team for the suggested primer. That is a matter to be taken up at Council level, in response to our recommendations. > > What is being said - and this goes to the point of Avri's post below - is that training for new councilors is now an absolute must as ICANN matures. > The SCI cannot and must not ignore the importance of getting this training element enshrined in the GNSO Council best practices to educate and ensure that future Councilors do not find themselves ignorant of the ground rules that govern their actions. This is even more important, as Avri notes below, for NCA appointees. > > I won't opine on Avri's comments as to why this has yet to be put in place, but I do feel strongly that it is time to get this sorted once and for all. > Therefore, I don't see any reason as to why the SCI should not make a training/primer program for GNSO Councilors part of our recommendations to Council in our response to the issue of re-voting a motion. > > Kind regards, > > RA > > Ronald N. Andruff > > RNA Partners, Inc. > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 8:15 AM > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task - Councilor Training > > > Hi, > > Since I was first aded to the g-cpuncil way back when, people have talk about training for new council members. Glad to see that old ideas never die. > > - I think it is out of scope for this group. We are responsible for looking at the rules themselves. Not how a council members becomes educated in those rules. > > - I am sure that too many council members would be too busy or too intelligent to bother taking the course or learn anything from them. they are not that hard or long to read and the staff has done a good job of creating information pieces. Anyone who is smart enough to be on the council can learn the rules if they wish to learn the rules. Plus except for NCAs, any new council member have the senior council members form their Constituency/SG to epxlain things to them form their C/SG's perspective. > > - there is a major education effort elsewhere in ICANN. It is bogged down in politics, because no one can agree on the content and the identity of the teachers. We do not trust each other enough to allow someone from the other side, or even staff, to do the teaching. > > avri > > > > On 15 Jan 2013, at 17:23, Ron Andruff wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> I think that the concept of providing a new councilor primer is an > excellent idea and one that we should give more thought to. Indeed, if all new Councilors are provided with a briefing on their mandate, documents that they should review, etc. that would serve the ICANN community and its various constituencies well. Moreover, a neutral presentation of roles/responsibilities and what is expected of them, may go further to assist new councilors in learning how to find consensus. Something we can all agree has been lacking in the trench warfare that we have seen in Council over the years. >> >> Thanks to Jennifer and Anne for bringing this idea forward. Let's >> explore > this further. >> >> 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 Aikman-Scalese, Anne >> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 2:41 PM >> To: 'Alain Berranger'; Jen Wolfe >> Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >> Hi all, >> I find myself a bit more concerned about the possible effect of such a > rule on quashing motions for reconsideration. There may even be changed circumstances that might justify reconsideration and one would not want to make a rule that no motion that has previously been voted upon can be brought before the Council again. >> >> I also tend to wonder whether a Councilor, especially a newer >> Councilor, > laboring under a misimpression about the conflict of interest rules, might not, in itself, constitute a changed circumstance. Maybe I am less critical because the Councilor in question is an IPC Councilor and also a very good lawyer. If he was confused about this, I consider it possible that anyone might be. So I tend to disagree that if the Councilor in question had been NCSG, that there would have been a uproar about the change in vote (or at least there shouldn't be in an ideal ICANN world). >> >> There is an aspect of this which for me involves "Do unto others as >> you > would have others do unto you." So it seems that if we say this is okay the way it happened, the same leniency is given going forward to any Councilor who labors under a misunderstanding of Council rules, subject perhaps to the discretion of the Chair in bringing the motion again. >> >> The harder line would be: "Dear Councilor: You are responsible for > knowing all the rules before you vote and no misunderstanding on your part as to any issue can serve as a basis for resubmission of a motion." If we go this route, new Councilors should definitely be trained accordingly. Do new GNSO Councilors receive training and orientation as is the norm for most Boards? >> Anne >> >> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese >> Of Counsel >> Lewis and Roca LLP . Suite 700 >> One South Church Avenue . Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) >> 629-4428 . Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman at LRLaw.com . >> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >> >> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information >> intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. >> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the >> agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are >> hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or >> copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication >> was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the > original message. >> >> >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alain Berranger >> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11:26 AM >> To: Jen Wolfe >> Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu; avri at acm.org; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >> Thanks Jennifer, >> >> Common sense speaks again! The black belt argument will often close a > discussion, though!!!! ;-) Many involved with ICANN would likely benefit from six sigma training... including myself! >> >> Let's see what the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements >> Implementation > I discussions will lead too. >> >> Cheers, Alain >> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Jen Wolfe wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> I hope your new year is off to a great start. I know I am new to the > council and this committee so forgive me if I am misunderstanding our role, but what confused me about this particular issue was that all of the councilors had the opportunity for discussion, to ask questions and for consensus. A vote was taken and then a councilor asked further clarifying questions and then wanted to change his vote. From a strictly process standpoint, I am not clear on why a new vote should be allowed once the time for discussion and clarifying questions close. In any other parliamentary procedure, legislative body or corporate governance on boards, once a vote is taken, that's it, even if someone misunderstood something procedurally or substantively. >> >> I fully understand the need for consensus, but once discussion closes >> and > a vote is taken, from a process and procedural standpoint, it's a slippery slope to start allowing votes to be re-opened because one person asked a clarifying question after the vote was taken. It not only takes up valuable time of the council in discussing new issues, but could be used inappropriately in the future if this were permissible. >> >> I look forward to participating in this committee. I have a black >> belt in > six sigma process improvement and pride myself on finding ways to function more efficiently and hope I can provide meaningful contributions to this committee. >> >> Have a great weekend! >> >> JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB >> MANAGING DIRECTOR, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADIVSORY >> FIRM MANAGING PARTNER, WOLFE, SADLER, BREEN, MORASCH & COLBY, AN >> INTELLECTUAL > PROPERTY LAW FIRM >> IAM 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011 & 2012 Follow Me: >> >> Blog: What will you do when your CEO asks why you didn't apply for a gTLD? >> >> Book: Domain Names Rewired >> >> >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff >> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:05 PM >> To: Alain Berranger; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu >> Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >> All, >> >> I am still missing the rationale as to why the NCSG representatives > believe this rule should be in place for a bottom-up consensus driven organization. >> >> Please help me understand. >> >> Jeffrey J. Neuman >> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs >> >> >> From: Alain Berranger [mailto:alain.berranger at gmail.com] >> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:01 PM >> To: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu >> Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; > jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Neuman, Jeff >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >> >> I agree fully with Mary's arguments. >> >> Best, Alain >> >> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:16 PM, wrote: >> Thanks, Jonathan and Jeff. As I won't be on the SCI call this week, my > view, FWIW, is that a motion that is properly introduced, seconded and voted on should NOT be re-introduced (whether in its original form or tweaked) in the absence of clear evidence indicating fraud, duress or other similar circumstance surrounding the original introduction/seconding/vote in relation to the motion. In this regard, Councilors' ignorance of the rules (e.g. effect of an abstention), and lack of instruction/direction from a Councilor's particular constituency/SG, should NOT count as the type of circumstance that ought to permit a reintroduction or re-vote on what in substance is the same motion. >> >> >> 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 >> >>>>> "Jonathan Robinson" 01/10/13 1:12 AM >>> >> All, >> >> My understanding of the role of the SCI is to determine how >> improvements > may be made for the future. >> >> When the motion was re-submitted to the December meeting, I do not >> believe > that there was any procedure to guide the Council on the re-introduction of a motion that had recently been voted on. >> >> This specific issue has highlighted that we may need something to >> guide us > on this in future. I do not believe that the SCI?s hands are tied at all. >> >> We have one useful example which raised concerns and now need to look >> at > as general solution as possible for the future in order to cover both the example that raised the concern and other cases which may occur in future. >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> Jonathan >> >> 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: 09 January 2013 16:58 >> To: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Cc: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com; Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >> >> I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in this > specific instance: >> >> - the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on. >> >> - just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors >> were > not aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they should be as it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a re-introduction of something that was properly introduced and voted on. >> >> - In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had > given instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did not, the fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO rules, and if a constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the time to discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a motion (again, one properly introduced, seconded and voted on). >> >> - In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and > referred the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion (without necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI before re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands are somewhat tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through - the mind boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and vote was improper or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive context within which ICANN is operating. >> >> 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 >> >>>>> Avri Doria 01/09/13 2:01 PM >>> >> >> Another thought experiment. >> >> There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG >> Policy > Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, some voters got confused and voted against. >> >> Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote? >> >> Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to >> just > reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and perhaps even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote? >> >> A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency >> beleive > that its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be able to have a vote rescheduled at the next meeting? >> >> avri >> >> >> On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> >>> Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can >>> be > reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on reconsideration in the ByLaws. >>> >>> One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that >>> one > of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case it was the Chair who had been on the losing side. >>> >>> We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote: >>> >>>> I tend to agree, >>>> >>>> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne ; >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' ; Jeff Neuman >>>> ; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; >>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson ; >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>>> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" >>>> type > inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going to discuss tomorrow. >>> >>> the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated. >>> >>>> >>>> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the >>>> GNSO > Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can provide prior to our call. >>> >>> It is all in the g-counci Procedures. >>> And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions > already made. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> the > original message. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM >>>> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I guess I do not support that. >>>> >>>> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it > back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should have past. >>>> >>>> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for > motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. >>>> >>>> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that >>>> should > never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. >>>> >>>> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an >>>> NCUC > based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go her way. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Avri, >>>>> >>>>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, >>>>> the > spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did not happen. >>>>> >>>>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is >>>>> evidence > of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>>>> >>>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time >>>>> To: Neuman, Jeff >>>>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Jonathan Robinson >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but >>>>> that is > not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion has passed or not. >>>>> >>>>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the > reality of the situation. >>>>> >>>>> avri >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not >>>>>> supposed > to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on consensus. >>>>>> >>>>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the > result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a second measurement of consensus is not an issue. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at ella.com] >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time >>>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff >>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors >>>>>>> to > vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), two remedies were possible. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case >>>>>> when it > is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and accountability. >>>>>> >>>>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to > make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. >>>>>> >>>>>> avri >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------- >>>> 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 >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > > > > From randruff at rnapartners.com Thu Jan 24 18:32:31 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:32:31 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] On SCI consensus and impasse In-Reply-To: <1F990DF0-A10D-4D4F-B8A4-8D183314B429@acm.org> Message-ID: <4DDA316C913E4423967D1D6A29A27090@ron> No, Avri, I was not alluding to any person or example; rather attempting to make clear the inequities I see with the current standard and rationale behind my thinking. In response to your comment on Charter clean-up, I appreciate your support for that work. In any case, I expect that, once we are done, we will need to have the GNSO Council sign-off on the revisions before they can go into effect. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 10:10 PM To: Gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] On SCI consensus and impasse On 23 Jan 2013, at 20:12, Ron Andruff wrote: > Holding the working group hostage until that individual deems to be satisfied, while others are not, is inequitable. Are you alluding to an specific example. I find your reference to members of the group holding other members hostage, somewhat problematic. In terms of the charter, while I am comfortable with cleanup, I am not comfortable with a re-write. avri From jscottevans at yahoo.com Thu Jan 24 18:53:04 2013 From: jscottevans at yahoo.com (J. Scott Evans) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:53:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter Revisions - Chair/Vice Chair Elections Message-ID: <1359053584.27052.YahooMailNeo@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Pursuant to comments from Ron and Anne yesterday, I am circulating a revision to the proposed charter changes to take into account the ability of the Chair and Vice Chair to opt for a second term without election. ?Please see the attached. ?I hope this captures the agreed upon process. 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 ElectionsJSE.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 24090 bytes Desc: not available URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Thu Jan 24 19:34:26 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:34:26 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Working Group Survey Results and Comments Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Attached is the summary of the survey results. 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. 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 julie.hedlund at icann.org Thu Jan 31 15:00:42 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 07:00:42 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re: Actions from SCI Meeting 23 January 2013 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Below are the actions I captured from the last meeting. Our next meeting is scheduled in two weeks on Wednesday, 06 February 2013 at 21:00 UTC for 1 hour. A notice will be sent out with the call details. Note that I have attached documents relating to some of the actions below as they apply. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions from SCI Meeting 23 January 2013 1. Chair/Vice Chair elections and terms and SCI Charter changes -- J.Scott agreed to produce some revised language re: the vice-chair term. (attached from J.Scott 24 Jan) 2. General Charter Changes -- Create a charter revision drafting team. 3. Working Group survey -- Review comments and questions; test the survey on a Working Group (IRTP) (Attached comments and results) 4. Termination and Suspension of a PDP -- J.Scott will send revised language to the list. 5. Re-submitting a motion -- Mary Wong will lead a sub-group -- Avri, Thomas, Anne -- to develop some options over the next two meetings (tentative deadline 17 February) 6. GNSO Council Liaison -- Put higher on the agenda for the next meeting 7. Attendance lists on the wiki -- Staff will update -------------- 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 24 Jan.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 24123 bytes Desc: SCI Charter Proposed Revision Chair-Vice Chair ElectionsJSE 24 Jan.docx 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 julie.hedlund at icann.org Thu Jan 31 16:06:51 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 08:06:51 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Meeting: Proposed Agenda for 06 February 2013 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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 julie.hedlund at icann.org Thu Jan 31 18:52:16 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:52:16 -0800 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] LInks re: SCI Meeting: Proposed Agenda for 06 February 2013 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear SCI members, The agenda as noted below is in the wiki. Here is the link to the meeting room: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/06+February+2013. Best regards, Julie From: Julie Hedlund > Date: Thursday, January 31, 2013 11:06 AM To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Meeting: Proposed Agenda for 06 February 2013 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: