[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task

Tue Jan 15 18:26:08 UTC 2013

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 <jwolfe at wolfedomain.com> 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]* <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jenwolfe>
> * **[image: Description: Description: cid:image002.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0]*<http://pinterest.com/wolfedomain/>
> * **[image: Description: Description: cid:image003.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0]*<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<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, <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> 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 <avri at acm.org> 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 <AAikman at lrlaw.com>;
> >> To: 'Avri Doria' <avri at acm.org>; Jeff Neuman <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>;
> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>;
> >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>;
> >> 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<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 <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 <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<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
> ****
>
> 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 CONFIDENTIALITÉ****
>
> Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l’usage exclusif du destinataire
> ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message sans en être le
> destinataire, ou l’employé(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au
> destinataire, est par les présentes avisée 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 être joint ou
> si ce document vous a été communiqué par erreur, veuillez nous en informer
> sur le champ  et détruire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de
> votre coopération.****
>
> ** **
>
> 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<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
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 CONFIDENTIALITÉ
Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l’usage exclusif du destinataire
ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message sans en être le
destinataire, ou l’employé(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au
destinataire, est par les présentes avisée 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 être joint ou
si ce document vous a été communiqué par erreur, veuillez nous en informer
sur le champ  et détruire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de
votre coopération.

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: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130115/21dbde91/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 386 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130115/21dbde91/image001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 484 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130115/21dbde91/image002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 386 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130115/21dbde91/image003.png>