From aelsadr at egyptig.org Mon Apr 7 13:33:02 2014 From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 15:33:02 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items/Next Meeting: SCI Meeting 22 March In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, Can someone direct me to where the recording/transcripts of this meeting are. I took some notes, but didn?t catch everything. Thanks. Amr On Mar 22, 2014, at 6:57 AM, Julie Hedlund wrote: > Dear All, > > Please find below the action items from the call on 22 March. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/22+March+2014. > > NOTE: We did not discuss the timing of the next meeting. I would like to suggest that we return to our usual bi-weekly schedule. I assume that we would skip the week after the Singapore meeting (01 April) and hold the next meeting on **Tuesday, 08 April at 20:00 UTC for 1 hour (12:00 PST , 15:00 EST, 20:00 London, 21:00 CET).** If there are no objections or other suggestions we'll arrange for the Secretariat to schedule the call and send an announcement. > > Best regards, > > Julie > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > > SCI Meeting ? 22 March -- Actions > 1. Review of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines Consensus Levels (sub team: Amr, Cintra, Greg, Thomas) ? The sub team will consider revisions to the language. > 2. Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures re: Late Motion Submissions (sub team: Greg, Marie-Laure) ? The sub team will consider the interplay between a late submission and a re-submssion, the consent agenda, and in consideration of email voting. > 3. Voting by Email: (sub team: Anne, Avri, Thomas) ? The sub team will continue to consider language and the interplay with motions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From terri.agnew at icann.org Mon Apr 7 13:45:36 2014 From: terri.agnew at icann.org (Terri Agnew) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 06:45:36 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items/Next Meeting: SCI Meeting 22 March In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Amr, You can locate recording/transcript for this meeting at: http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/sat-gnso-working Thank you, Terri Agnew From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 8:33 AM To: Julie Hedlund Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items/Next Meeting: SCI Meeting 22 March Hi all, Can someone direct me to where the recording/transcripts of this meeting are. I took some notes, but didn't catch everything. Thanks. Amr On Mar 22, 2014, at 6:57 AM, Julie Hedlund > wrote: Dear All, Please find below the action items from the call on 22 March. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/22+March+2014. NOTE: We did not discuss the timing of the next meeting. I would like to suggest that we return to our usual bi-weekly schedule. I assume that we would skip the week after the Singapore meeting (01 April) and hold the next meeting on **Tuesday, 08 April at 20:00 UTC for 1 hour (12:00 PST , 15:00 EST, 20:00 London, 21:00 CET).** If there are no objections or other suggestions we'll arrange for the Secretariat to schedule the call and send an announcement. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director SCI Meeting - 22 March -- Actions 1. Review of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines Consensus Levels (sub team: Amr, Cintra, Greg, Thomas) - The sub team will consider revisions to the language. 2. Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures re: Late Motion Submissions (sub team: Greg, Marie-Laure) - The sub team will consider the interplay between a late submission and a re-submssion, the consent agenda, and in consideration of email voting. 3. Voting by Email: (sub team: Anne, Avri, Thomas) - The sub team will continue to consider language and the interplay with motions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5417 bytes Desc: not available URL: From aelsadr at egyptig.org Mon Apr 7 13:47:06 2014 From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 15:47:06 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items/Next Meeting: SCI Meeting 22 March In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <128D66C2-56CA-46C9-A9D2-6A4FA3700DB1@egyptig.org> Thanks Terri. Appreciate the help. :) Amr On Apr 7, 2014, at 3:45 PM, Terri Agnew wrote: > Hello Amr, > > You can locate recording/transcript for this meeting at:http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/sat-gnso-working > > Thank you, > > Terri Agnew > > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr > Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 8:33 AM > To: Julie Hedlund > Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items/Next Meeting: SCI Meeting 22 March > > Hi all, > > Can someone direct me to where the recording/transcripts of this meeting are. I took some notes, but didn?t catch everything. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Mar 22, 2014, at 6:57 AM, Julie Hedlund wrote: > > > Dear All, > > Please find below the action items from the call on 22 March. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/22+March+2014. > > NOTE: We did not discuss the timing of the next meeting. I would like to suggest that we return to our usual bi-weekly schedule. I assume that we would skip the week after the Singapore meeting (01 April) and hold the next meeting on**Tuesday, 08 April at 20:00 UTC for 1 hour (12:00 PST , 15:00 EST, 20:00 London, 21:00 CET).** If there are no objections or other suggestions we'll arrange for the Secretariat to schedule the call and send an announcement. > > Best regards, > > Julie > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > > SCI Meeting ? 22 March -- Actions > 1. Review of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines Consensus Levels (sub team: Amr, Cintra, Greg, Thomas) ? The sub team will consider revisions to the language. > 2. Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures re: Late Motion Submissions (sub team: Greg, Marie-Laure) ? The sub team will consider the interplay between a late submission and a re-submssion, the consent agenda, and in consideration of email voting. > 3. Voting by Email: (sub team: Anne, Avri, Thomas) ? The sub team will continue to consider language and the interplay with motions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr at egyptig.org Tue Apr 8 11:12:45 2014 From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 13:12:45 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO WG Definitions of Decision-Making Levels Message-ID: <6F02F42F-9AC7-43CF-AE3E-FCF69CFB9A61@egyptig.org> Hi, I?ve taken a stab at some very slight word-smithing on the last draft of the WG consensus levels discussed at our F2F in Singapore. I?ve tried to capture the comments made, and a little more and look forward to a discussion on this during today?s call. I have admittedly done this only today, so have not had time to consult with the rest of the sub-team. Greg, Thomas, Cintra?, my apologies. Thanks. Amr -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Consensus Levels Revision by the SCI - edits post Singapore.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 100527 bytes Desc: not available URL: From marika.konings at icann.org Tue Apr 8 11:24:09 2014 From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 04:24:09 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO WG Definitions of Decision-Making Levels In-Reply-To: <6F02F42F-9AC7-43CF-AE3E-FCF69CFB9A61@egyptig.org> References: <6F02F42F-9AC7-43CF-AE3E-FCF69CFB9A61@egyptig.org> Message-ID: Apologies for having missed the F2F meeting in Singapore, but how do these changes address the specific question that was put forward by the GNSO Council on behalf of the IGO/INGO PDP WG: 'and specifically requests the SCI to review and, if deemed appropriate, recommend revised or additional language to apply to situations where working groups may reach sufficient consensus against a particular proposal such that the appropriate consensus level cannot accurately be described as No Consensus/Divergence'? The additions / edits may be helpful clarifications but they seem to go beyond the scope of the specific question put forward to the SCI. But maybe I am missing something, so I am looking forward to discussing this further on the call later today. Best regards, Marika On 08/04/14 13:12, "Amr Elsadr" wrote: >Hi, > >I?ve taken a stab at some very slight word-smithing on the last draft of >the WG consensus levels discussed at our F2F in Singapore. I?ve tried to >capture the comments made, and a little more and look forward to a >discussion on this during today?s call. > >I have admittedly done this only today, so have not had time to consult >with the rest of the sub-team. Greg, Thomas, Cintra?, my apologies. > >Thanks. > >Amr > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: default.xml Type: application/xml Size: 3222 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 aelsadr at egyptig.org Tue Apr 8 11:40:26 2014 From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 13:40:26 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO WG Definitions of Decision-Making Levels In-Reply-To: References: <6F02F42F-9AC7-43CF-AE3E-FCF69CFB9A61@egyptig.org> Message-ID: Thanks for the feedback, Marika. I?d be grateful if you pointed out the specifics in the document on today?s call. I have to admit, I?ve been struggling with it. I?m no lawyer?, that?s for sure. :) In any case, the sub-team?s intent has always been to address revisions to take into consideration when consensus against WG recommendations is the situation, as divergence does not reflect this situation (as was the case with the IGO/INGO WG). That?s probably why the definition of divergence is the only one that hasn?t really been substantively changed. The focus has been on the rest so far. Still?, we do have the three ways to move forward that Ron had previously suggested: 1. Recommend changes in the definitions to the GNSO Council when the SCI finalises them. 2. To not recommend any changes at this time, and postpone changes to see if they indeed become necessary in the future (although there have been some recommendations not to do this). 3. The third option is to not change the definitions, but instead to add a footnote to them indicating that the decision-making levels could be used when consensus is for or against WG recommendations. Thanks again, Marika. Amr On Apr 8, 2014, at 1:24 PM, Marika Konings wrote: > Apologies for having missed the F2F meeting in Singapore, but how do these > changes address the specific question that was put forward by the GNSO > Council on behalf of the IGO/INGO PDP WG: 'and specifically requests the > SCI to review and, if deemed appropriate, recommend revised or additional > language to apply to situations where working groups may reach > sufficient consensus against a particular proposal such that the > appropriate consensus level cannot accurately be described as No > Consensus/Divergence'? The additions / edits may be helpful clarifications > but they seem to go beyond the scope of the specific question put forward > to the SCI. But maybe I am missing something, so I am looking forward to > discussing this further on the call later today. > > Best regards, > > Marika > > On 08/04/14 13:12, "Amr Elsadr" wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I?ve taken a stab at some very slight word-smithing on the last draft of >> the WG consensus levels discussed at our F2F in Singapore. I?ve tried to >> capture the comments made, and a little more and look forward to a >> discussion on this during today?s call. >> >> I have admittedly done this only today, so have not had time to consult >> with the rest of the sub-team. Greg, Thomas, Cintra?, my apologies. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> > > From GShatan at reedsmith.com Tue Apr 8 15:23:26 2014 From: GShatan at reedsmith.com (Shatan, Gregory S.) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 15:23:26 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO WG Definitions of Decision-Making Levels In-Reply-To: References: <6F02F42F-9AC7-43CF-AE3E-FCF69CFB9A61@egyptig.org> Message-ID: I've been giving this some thought (which unfortunately I kept to myself). There are really 2 problems here. 1. Dealing with the "consensus against" problem. This is our explicit assignment. 2. The Decision-Making Levels are not well-drafted in certain places. There is inconsistent use of language (different words used to mean the same thing), inconsistent use of "unstated phrases" (leaving out the same or similar phrase when reiterating a point) creating ambiguity, etc. We are trying to solve both problems at the same time. We started down this road because the fix needs to change all of the levels (except perhaps Divergence). Then, slowly (as we became more comfortable with the document), we started to see the list's infirmities and tried to resolve them. In my day job, I call this "drafting creep." The problem with drafting creep is that it opens up issues beyond the one you were fixing, and intertwines those two sets of issues in a way that complicates review by others. This is what Marika is seeing. I think we need to reverse course for the moment. I think both (1) and (2) above are problems that need to be addressed. But only (1) is really on our plate. I'll make the moderately radical suggestion that we keep our hands off the current levels (in spite of their issues) and address the "consensus against" issue (which does affect all the levels) in a footnote (Amr's alternative 3, below). At some later time, we can then follow up and improve the drafting of the levels, separate from dealing with the "consensus against" issue. Just my thoughts. I can try to draft a footnote today, but it's a bit of a messy day (3 ICANN/IG calls plus that "day job"), so I'm not sure if I can. Greg Shatan Gregory S. Shatan Partner Reed Smith LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212.549.0275 (Phone) 917.816.6428 (Mobile) 212.521.5450 (Fax) gshatan at reedsmith.com www.reedsmith.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 7:40 AM To: Marika Konings Cc: Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO WG Definitions of Decision-Making Levels Thanks for the feedback, Marika. I?d be grateful if you pointed out the specifics in the document on today?s call. I have to admit, I?ve been struggling with it. I?m no lawyer?, that?s for sure. :) In any case, the sub-team?s intent has always been to address revisions to take into consideration when consensus against WG recommendations is the situation, as divergence does not reflect this situation (as was the case with the IGO/INGO WG). That?s probably why the definition of divergence is the only one that hasn?t really been substantively changed. The focus has been on the rest so far. Still?, we do have the three ways to move forward that Ron had previously suggested: 1. Recommend changes in the definitions to the GNSO Council when the SCI finalises them. 2. To not recommend any changes at this time, and postpone changes to see if they indeed become necessary in the future (although there have been some recommendations not to do this). 3. The third option is to not change the definitions, but instead to add a footnote to them indicating that the decision-making levels could be used when consensus is for or against WG recommendations. Thanks again, Marika. Amr On Apr 8, 2014, at 1:24 PM, Marika Konings wrote: > Apologies for having missed the F2F meeting in Singapore, but how do > these changes address the specific question that was put forward by > the GNSO Council on behalf of the IGO/INGO PDP WG: 'and specifically > requests the SCI to review and, if deemed appropriate, recommend > revised or additional language to apply to situations where working > groups may reach sufficient consensus against a particular proposal > such that the appropriate consensus level cannot accurately be > described as No Consensus/Divergence'? The additions / edits may be > helpful clarifications but they seem to go beyond the scope of the > specific question put forward to the SCI. But maybe I am missing > something, so I am looking forward to discussing this further on the call later today. > > Best regards, > > Marika > > On 08/04/14 13:12, "Amr Elsadr" wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I?ve taken a stab at some very slight word-smithing on the last draft >> of the WG consensus levels discussed at our F2F in Singapore. I?ve >> tried to capture the comments made, and a little more and look >> forward to a discussion on this during today?s call. >> >> I have admittedly done this only today, so have not had time to >> consult with the rest of the sub-team. Greg, Thomas, Cintra?, my apologies. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> > > * * * This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation. * * * To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00 From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Tue Apr 8 17:24:15 2014 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 17:24:15 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO WG Definitions of Decision-Making Levels In-Reply-To: References: <6F02F42F-9AC7-43CF-AE3E-FCF69CFB9A61@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9A24D612B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Thanks Greg. I think this is a helpful observation. Regarding "day job", regrettably mine conflicts for today's SCI call . Regarding the e-mail voting issues, I had circulated in January a redline with questions about that process. It is attached again, although it may be impacted by some suggestions that were made regarding the 10 day waiver recommendation. In this regard, my comment is that e-mail voting is not appropriate for unanimous consent to waive the 10 day rule since it does not seem to me that it could meet the litmus test of "participation in full discussion" that applies to e-mail voting. With respect to both the consensus levels and the waiver of the ten day rule, whatever is determined in today's call will have to be taken back to IPC for formal input. I also think, as I said at the end of the Singapore meeting, that Thomas, Avri, and I need to schedule a separate call on the e-mail voting issue as a subgroup. Perhaps we could ask staff to assist in scheduling the call? Very sorry I cannot participate today but I must attend a meeting of all lawyers in my firm's Tucson office occurring at the same hour. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | Suite 700 One South Church Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Shatan, Gregory S. Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 8:23 AM To: 'Amr Elsadr'; Marika Konings Cc: Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO WG Definitions of Decision-Making Levels I've been giving this some thought (which unfortunately I kept to myself). There are really 2 problems here. 1. Dealing with the "consensus against" problem. This is our explicit assignment. 2. The Decision-Making Levels are not well-drafted in certain places. There is inconsistent use of language (different words used to mean the same thing), inconsistent use of "unstated phrases" (leaving out the same or similar phrase when reiterating a point) creating ambiguity, etc. We are trying to solve both problems at the same time. We started down this road because the fix needs to change all of the levels (except perhaps Divergence). Then, slowly (as we became more comfortable with the document), we started to see the list's infirmities and tried to resolve them. In my day job, I call this "drafting creep." The problem with drafting creep is that it opens up issues beyond the one you were fixing, and intertwines those two sets of issues in a way that complicates review by others. This is what Marika is seeing. I think we need to reverse course for the moment. I think both (1) and (2) above are problems that need to be addressed. But only (1) is really on our plate. I'll make the moderately radical suggestion that we keep our hands off the current levels (in spite of their issues) and address the "consensus against" issue (which does affect all the levels) in a footnote (Amr's alternative 3, below). At some later time, we can then follow up and improve the drafting of the levels, separate from dealing with the "consensus against" issue. Just my thoughts. I can try to draft a footnote today, but it's a bit of a messy day (3 ICANN/IG calls plus that "day job"), so I'm not sure if I can. Greg Shatan Gregory S. Shatan Partner Reed Smith LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212.549.0275 (Phone) 917.816.6428 (Mobile) 212.521.5450 (Fax) gshatan at reedsmith.com www.reedsmith.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 7:40 AM To: Marika Konings Cc: Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO WG Definitions of Decision-Making Levels Thanks for the feedback, Marika. I?d be grateful if you pointed out the specifics in the document on today?s call. I have to admit, I?ve been struggling with it. I?m no lawyer?, that?s for sure. :) In any case, the sub-team?s intent has always been to address revisions to take into consideration when consensus against WG recommendations is the situation, as divergence does not reflect this situation (as was the case with the IGO/INGO WG). That?s probably why the definition of divergence is the only one that hasn?t really been substantively changed. The focus has been on the rest so far. Still?, we do have the three ways to move forward that Ron had previously suggested: 1. Recommend changes in the definitions to the GNSO Council when the SCI finalises them. 2. To not recommend any changes at this time, and postpone changes to see if they indeed become necessary in the future (although there have been some recommendations not to do this). 3. The third option is to not change the definitions, but instead to add a footnote to them indicating that the decision-making levels could be used when consensus is for or against WG recommendations. Thanks again, Marika. Amr On Apr 8, 2014, at 1:24 PM, Marika Konings wrote: > Apologies for having missed the F2F meeting in Singapore, but how do > these changes address the specific question that was put forward by > the GNSO Council on behalf of the IGO/INGO PDP WG: 'and specifically > requests the SCI to review and, if deemed appropriate, recommend > revised or additional language to apply to situations where working > groups may reach sufficient consensus against a particular proposal > such that the appropriate consensus level cannot accurately be > described as No Consensus/Divergence'? The additions / edits may be > helpful clarifications but they seem to go beyond the scope of the > specific question put forward to the SCI. But maybe I am missing > something, so I am looking forward to discussing this further on the call later today. > > Best regards, > > Marika > > On 08/04/14 13:12, "Amr Elsadr" wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I?ve taken a stab at some very slight word-smithing on the last draft >> of the WG consensus levels discussed at our F2F in Singapore. I?ve >> tried to capture the comments made, and a little more and look >> forward to a discussion on this during today?s call. >> >> I have admittedly done this only today, so have not had time to >> consult with the rest of the sub-team. Greg, Thomas, Cintra?, my apologies. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> > > * * * This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation. * * * To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00 ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. ?2510-2521. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this message or any attachments 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICANN GNSO SCI - email voting.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 20062 bytes Desc: ICANN GNSO SCI - email voting.docx URL: From GShatan at reedsmith.com Tue Apr 8 19:39:13 2014 From: GShatan at reedsmith.com (Shatan, Gregory S.) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 19:39:13 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FW: Waiver of 10 Day Requirement for Submission of a Motion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Resending. From: Shatan, Gregory S. Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 12:54 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Waiver of 10 Day Requirement for Submission of a Motion All: I look forward to meeting with you (and in some cases meeting you) in a few hours. Marika and I have prepared the following proposed language relating to the above issue (a Word version is also attached). The new language is in italics (if you can?t see italics, it begins with ?(the ?Submission Deadline?)? and proceeds for the next two paragraphs). 3.3 Notice of Meetings Advance notice of meetings shall be posted on the GNSO website, if reasonably practicable, at least 7 days in advance of the meeting for Administrative issues and 14 days in advance for Policy issues. Advance notice shall also be posted to other GNSO Council work spaces where practical. Reports and motions should be submitted to the GNSO Council for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar days before the GNSO Council meeting (the ?Submission Deadline?). If a motion is submitted after the Submission Deadline, the GNSO Council shall consider the motion if the following requirements are met: * The motion is submitted to the GNSO Council at least 24 hours in advance of the GNSO Council meeting; * The motion is accompanied by a request to consider the motion despite submission after the Submission Deadline (a ?Request for Consideration?); * A vote on the Request for Consideration shall be called as the first order of business for the agenda item that deals with the motion. The vote on the Request for Consideration must be unanimous (i.e., all Councilors or their proxies must vote and all votes cast must be in favor of considering the motion at such GNSO Council meeting) for the motion to be considered at such GNSO Council meeting. If these requirements are not met, the motion shall be considered at the next GNSO Council meeting, provided that the motion has been submitted prior to the Submission Deadline for such next GNSO Council meeting. If not, the requirements above must be met for consideration at such next GNSO Council meeting. For the avoidance of doubt, if the requirements above are not met, the motion shall not be considered ?submitted? for purposes of these Rules. The time of the meetings may vary to accommodate the different geographic regions represented by GNSO Council members. By way of guidance, start times corresponding to local times for the GNSO Council members earlier than 0600 and later than 2300 should be avoided where possible. We look forward to your comments. (Note that this language has not been reviewed by my constituency, the IPC.) Best regards, Greg Gregory S. Shatan Deputy Chair | Tech Transactions Group IP | Technology | Media ReedSmithLLP The business of relationships 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212.549.0275 | Phone 917.816.6428 | Mobile 212.521.5450 | Fax gshatan at reedsmith.com www.reedsmith.com * * * This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation. * * * To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Motion waiver draft language - 20 March 2014.DOC Type: application/msword Size: 16384 bytes Desc: Motion waiver draft language - 20 March 2014.DOC URL: From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Tue Apr 8 20:07:52 2014 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 13:07:52 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] MP3 recording of the SCI meeting - 08 April 2014 Message-ID: Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Tuesday, 08 April 2014 at 19:00 UTC. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20140408-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#apr (transcripts and recording are found on the calendar page) Attendees: Ronald Andruff - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Primary - Chair Angie Graves - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Alternate Greg Shatan - IPC - Alternate Cintra Sooknanan: NPOC Primary - SCI Vice Chair Amr Elsadr - NCUC Alternate Avri Doria - NCSG - Primary Apologies: Marie-Laure Lemineur - NPOC Alternative Anne Aikman Scalese - IPC - Primary Jennifer Standiford - Registrar Stakeholder Group - Primary Thomas Rickert - Nominating Committee Appointee - Alternate ICANN Staff: Marika Konings Julie Hedlund Mary Wong Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie Adobe Chat Transcript 08 April 2014 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5457 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Tue Apr 8 20:26:16 2014 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 13:26:16 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] MP3 recording of the SCI meeting - 08 April 2014 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Tuesday, 08 April 2014 at 19:00 UTC. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20140408-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#apr (transcripts and recording are found on the calendar page) Attendees: Ronald Andruff - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Primary - Chair Angie Graves - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Alternate Greg Shatan - IPC - Alternate Cintra Sooknanan: NPOC Primary - SCI Vice Chair Amr Elsadr - NCUC Alternate Avri Doria - NCSG - Primary Apologies: Marie-Laure Lemineur - NPOC Alternative Anne Aikman Scalese - IPC - Primary Jennifer Standiford - Registrar Stakeholder Group - Primary Thomas Rickert - Nominating Committee Appointee - Alternate ICANN Staff: Marika Konings Julie Hedlund Mary Wong Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie Adobe Chat Transcript 08 April 2014 Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, welcome to the SCI meeting on the 8th April 2014 at 19:00 UTC Ron A:Good day ladies. Dialing in now. Nathalie Peregrine:Excellent! I had a dial out set up on the offchance Amr Elsadr:Hey Ron, Julie and Nathalie. Hope you're all well. Dialling in now. Nathalie Peregrine:Hello Amr, welcome! Amr Elsadr:I guess I'm a few minutes early, but thought I'd try to compensate for being late to the f2f in Singapore. :) Amr Elsadr:Hi. Just joined the call. Greg Shatan:I'm in chat/Adobe, waiting to get on call. Nathalie Peregrine:Cintra has joined the AC room Amr Elsadr:OK. I'm in agreement with both Greg and Marika on this point. We might want to revisit how we approach this puzzle. Cintra Sooknanan:hello everyone Ron A:Welcome Cintra Cintra Sooknanan:I agree the subcommittee doesnt want to overstep the requirements of the SCI or working group requirements Cintra Sooknanan:also there needs to be a revisit of the terminology to create consistency in the consensus and support definitions Amr Elsadr::) Cintra Sooknanan:+1 Amr Cintra Sooknanan:sorry I am not yet on the call so placing comments here thanks Ron for the acknowledgment Nathalie Peregrine:Thomas Rickert also sends his apology for today's call Avri Doria:i still think consenus against is identical (li=ogially ) with no support for. i guess i do not understand the question or the need tfor an solution, temporary or otherwise. Avri Doria:but if status quo is the solution, i am fine with it. Avri Doria:.i.e they are ligically identical i beleive. Avri Doria:logically Amr Elsadr:Avri: I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying the existing language supports "consensus against"? Avri Doria:yeah, it is called no support for. Avri Doria:which does not really need a sperate defintion. Avri Doria:maybe i am being slow, but i do think we are overthinking. Avri Doria:why are these two things related? confused again? Avri Doria:i.e how is SCI affected by the review? Avri Doria:i would think they were orthogonal Amr Elsadr:Do you mean adding a new decision-making level added to the existing ones? The problem with this is that we would need several new consensus levels to that effect including consensus (not full consensus) and strong support with significant opposition. The current language doesn't support this. Avri Doria:yeah, but that is years from now. Avri Doria:thanks Marika Konings:Not if you follow the SIC Timeline presented in Singapore ;-) Amr Elsadr:Actually..., the only one that doesn't really need much work is divergence. Cintra Sooknanan:I think no support for can be demonstrated by abstaining from a decision, not necessarily only consensus against Marika Konings:implementation is foreseen for Feb 15 - Feb 16 according to the timeline presented Avri Doria:back to the first issue, can hav full consensus on a negative statement. Avri Doria:i have no questions. Amr Elsadr:+minority. :) Cintra Sooknanan:I think the issue was that changing.negating the statement was considered to be outside the ambit of the wg and procedurally impossible Avri Doria:so we had a way to do it and dont really need to change any docmentation. Avri Doria:if you use negative stmts it does. Amr Elsadr:@Marika: Yeah..., sorry about that. I probably should know more about this. :) Amr Elsadr:Thanks Marika. That makes pretty good sense. Amr Elsadr:@Greg: Thanks. Absolutely right!! :D Avri Doria:noting to report. Avri Doria:nothing to report on email voting. Avri Doria:no idea Julie Hedlund:Actually, Anne sent in the version you see in front of you. Julie Hedlund:She sent it today with apologies of not being on the call. Avri Doria:good idea Amr Elsadr:I also support this idea. Avri Doria:yep the grup should meet and see if they want to suggest something. just like Marika suggested. Greg Shatan:I resent the waiver language to the list. Avri Doria:i am not sure i want to opne the whole can of worms, but i will pass the request on if the SCI has one. Ron A:Julie: Can you grab Greg's Waiver Language post? Julie Hedlund:I haven't received it yet Ron Julie Hedlund:I will when I get it. Cintra Sooknanan:Hello Just to clarify I am not on Council Cintra Sooknanan::) Greg Shatan:It was originally sent to the list on 3/21 @12:54 pm (not sure what time zone). Cintra Sooknanan:Happy to assist on this point though and ensure we don't reinven the wheel (borrow mechanisms for email voting already in place by alac/at large) Julie Hedlund:Sorry - This is Marika's language Marika Konings:I found it, I think ;-) Julie Hedlund:Let me pull Greg's Marika Konings:this is what Greg sent on 22 March Marika Konings:to the list Amr Elsadr:This isn't the right document. Julie Hedlund:I am looking for it Greg Shatan:(the "Submission Deadline").If a motion is submitted after the Submission Deadline, the GNSO Council shall consider the motion if the following requirements are met: . The motion is submitted to the GNSO Council at least 24 hours in advance of the GNSO Council meeting; . The motion is accompanied by a request to consider the motion despite submission after the Submission Deadline (a "Request for Consideration");. A vote on the Request for Consideration shall be called as the first order of business for the agenda item that deals with the motion. The vote on the Request for Consideration must be unanimous (i.e., all Councilors or their proxies must vote and all votes cast must be in favor of considering the motion at such GNSO Council meeting) for the motion to be considered at such GNSO Council meeting.If these requirements are not met, the motion shall be considered at the next GNSO Council meeting, provided that the motion has been submitted prior to the Submission Deadline for such next GNSO Julie Hedlund:Greg is this it? Avri Doria:does this fail if there is an absence? Avri Doria:but if it is one long mtg, how can one put something on the table on saturday for wednesday. Greg Shatan:You are right Marika. Avri Doria:given that you have to put it on the table 24 befoe a meeting. one that is already ongoing. Amr Elsadr:Yes. The weekend session isn't the same as the Wednesday meeting. Cintra Sooknanan:I wonder if a separate section/clause should be created for the time of the meetings, it does not seem to fit within Notice of Meetings Cintra Sooknanan:I also would suggest moving away from "these Rules" at the end of the second to last paragraph, and suggest instead using "for the purpose of providing Notice of Meetings" Amr Elsadr:Proxies need to be set before the meeting starts. Avri Doria:why does it mater. as long as there is quorom Cintra Sooknanan:how much in advance do proxies have to be set Amr? Amr Elsadr:I'm not sure of the deadline, but I know an official notice needs to be sent to the GNSO secretariat. Avri Doria:Cintra, they need to be set by the beginning of the meeting. Cintra Sooknanan:thanks Cintra Sooknanan:so the workding in the first bullet that refers toGNSO council also includes proxies? does it need to be explicit? Amr Elsadr:I think the clarification is necessary. Avri Doria:i still think if there is mtg quorom, that is good enough Avri Doria:and leave the proxy issue to quorom issue and not get into it. Avri Doria:but quorom means all SGs are present. Avri Doria:no? Amr Elsadr:Avri: As far as the NCSG is concerned, councillors are not required to vote the same. :) Mary Wong:@Avri, quorum is for the CPH and NCPH. Avri Doria:Amr i undederstand that. why does it matter? they can cerainly speak fo tthe SG not beoing willing to to vote yet. Avri Doria:if that is the case. Avri Doria:i think we are over complicating. Marika Konings:@Cintra - it will be the responsibility of the SG/C to inform the proxy of what the motions are under consideration and whether there are any specific instructions with regard to voting. Amr Elsadr:It matters if we decide it matters and if we require unanimous consensus, doesn't it? Marika Konings:a proxy is a Council member so should indeed already be aware Marika Konings:only in the case of an alternate there may be a need for additional communication (but again, an alternate is added temporarily to the Council list so should be aware) Avri Doria:proxys should always be aware, otherwise why are they proxying. Amr Elsadr:I still think a clarification on resubmitted motions should be added. Avri Doria:i am still hesitant to add yet another procedure that has special count requirements, the rules are already gothic. Avri Doria:bye y'all. Cintra Sooknanan:bye Julie Hedlund:Goodbye everyone and thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5457 bytes Desc: not available URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Tue Apr 8 20:32:25 2014 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 13:32:25 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items/Next Meeting: SCI Meeting 08 April Message-ID: Dear All, Please find below the action items from the call on 08 April. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/08+April+2014. Our next meeting is scheduled in two weeks for **Tuesday, 22 April at 1900 UTC for 1 hour (12:00 PDT , 15:00 EDT, 20:00 London, 21:00 CEST).** An announcement will be sent separately. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director SCI Meeting ? 08 April -- Actions 1. Review of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines Consensus Levels (sub team: Amr, Cintra, Greg, Thomas) -- Propose language to the list for the footnote. 2. Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures (sub team: Greg, Marie-Laure) -- Greg will provide some revised language based on discussion in the meeting, including a clarification on resubmitted motions. 3. Voting by Email: (sub team: Anne, Avri, Thomas) -- Meet to review the issue of broadening the scope. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From cintra.sooknanan at gmail.com Wed Apr 9 00:21:59 2014 From: cintra.sooknanan at gmail.com (Cintra Sooknanan) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 20:21:59 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FW: Waiver of 10 Day Requirement for Submission of a Motion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Greg Thanks for resending this text and for going through it on today's call. Since time was against us I have outlined some queries below - 1. Perhaps a separate section/clause should be created for the time of the meetings? The time of the meeting is an important consideration but it does not seem to fit within Notice of Meeting. 2. Which Rules are referred to at the end of the second to last paragraph? Is it the GNSO rules, the rules in the clause relating to the Notice of Meetings or otherwise? To avoid ambiguity this could be clarified. 3. The 24 hour advance motion submission deadline seems appropriate. But I am concerned that a proxy (who is expected to vote) is sufficiently aware or informed of the issue since there is no similar timeframe for the declaration of a proxy. On first consideration it appears that the declaration of proxy must work in tandem with the 24 hour motion notice period. If that the proxy is not declared in advance of the meeting to ensure that they receive the 24 hour notice and the proxies are not on the GNSO Council; then I believe there should be inclusion of proxies receiving 24 hour notice in the first bullet. Thanks for your consideration and comment. Kind regards Cintra On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote: > Resending. > > > > *From:* Shatan, Gregory S. > *Sent:* Friday, March 21, 2014 12:54 PM > *To:* gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > *Subject:* Waiver of 10 Day Requirement for Submission of a Motion > > > > All: > > > > I look forward to meeting with you (and in some cases meeting you) in a > few hours. Marika and I have prepared the following proposed language > relating to the above issue (a Word version is also attached). The new > language is in italics (if you can't see italics, it begins with "(the > "Submission Deadline")" and proceeds for the next two paragraphs). > > > > 3.3 Notice of Meetings > > > > Advance notice of meetings shall be posted on the GNSO website, if > reasonably practicable, at least 7 days in advance of the meeting for > Administrative issues and 14 days in advance for Policy issues. Advance > notice shall also be posted to other GNSO Council work spaces where > practical. > > > > Reports and motions should be submitted to the GNSO Council for inclusion > on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated > Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar days before the GNSO Council > meeting *(the "Submission Deadline")*. > > > > *If a motion is submitted after the Submission Deadline, the GNSO Council > shall consider the motion if the following requirements are met: * > > > > - *The motion is submitted to the GNSO Council at least 24 hours in > advance of the GNSO Council meeting; * > - *The motion is accompanied by a request to consider the motion > despite submission after the Submission Deadline (a "Request for > Consideration");* > - *A vote on the Request for Consideration shall be called as the > first order of business for the agenda item that deals with the motion. The > vote on the Request for Consideration must be unanimous (i.e., all > Councilors or their proxies must vote and all votes cast must be in favor > of considering the motion at such GNSO Council meeting) for the motion to > be considered at such GNSO Council meeting.* > > > > *If these requirements are not met, the motion shall be considered at the > next GNSO Council meeting, provided that the motion has been submitted > prior to the Submission Deadline for such next GNSO Council meeting. If > not, the requirements above must be met for consideration at such next GNSO > Council meeting. For the avoidance of doubt, if the requirements above are > not met, the motion shall not be considered "submitted" for purposes of > these Rules.* > > > > The time of the meetings may vary to accommodate the different geographic > regions represented by GNSO Council members. By way of guidance, start > times corresponding to local times for the GNSO Council members earlier > than 0600 and later than 2300 should be avoided where possible. > > > > We look forward to your comments. (Note that this language has not been > reviewed by my constituency, the IPC.) > > > > Best regards, > > > > Greg > > > > *Gregory S. Shatan* > *Deputy Chair | Tech Transactions Group* > *IP | Technology | Media* > *Reed**Smith*LLP > The business of relationships > 599 Lexington Avenue > New York, NY 10022 > 212.549.0275 | Phone > 917.816.6428 | Mobile > 212.521.5450 | Fax > gshatan at reedsmith.com > www.reedsmith.com > > > > > > * * * > > This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and > may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are > on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and > then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it > for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you > for your cooperation. > > * * * > > To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you > that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice > contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not > intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) > avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and > local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another > party any tax-related matters addressed herein. > > Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marika.konings at icann.org Wed Apr 9 06:59:43 2014 From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 23:59:43 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FW: Waiver of 10 Day Requirement for Submission of a Motion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Cintra, section 3.3. of the GNSO operating procedures outline the current requirements for notice and planning of meetings. In relation to point 3, please note that per section 4.6 of the GNSO Operating Procedures only existing GNSO Council members can serve as a proxy. Also, should a temporary alternate be appointed per section 4.7, this also foresees that the temporary alternate is added to the mailing list and included in all the relevant discussions to ensure that he or she is 'knowledgeable on the matter at issue and qualified to represent the appointing organisation's interests'. Best regards, Marika From: Cintra Sooknanan Date: Wednesday 9 April 2014 02:21 To: "Shatan, Gregory S." Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FW: Waiver of 10 Day Requirement for Submission of a Motion Dear Greg Thanks for resending this text and for going through it on today's call. Since time was against us I have outlined some queries below - 1. Perhaps a separate section/clause should be created for the time of the meetings? The time of the meeting is an important consideration but it does not seem to fit within Notice of Meeting. 2. Which Rules are referred to at the end of the second to last paragraph? Is it the GNSO rules, the rules in the clause relating to the Notice of Meetings or otherwise? To avoid ambiguity this could be clarified. 3. The 24 hour advance motion submission deadline seems appropriate. But I am concerned that a proxy (who is expected to vote) is sufficiently aware or informed of the issue since there is no similar timeframe for the declaration of a proxy. On first consideration it appears that the declaration of proxy must work in tandem with the 24 hour motion notice period. If that the proxy is not declared in advance of the meeting to ensure that they receive the 24 hour notice and the proxies are not on the GNSO Council; then I believe there should be inclusion of proxies receiving 24 hour notice in the first bullet. Thanks for your consideration and comment. Kind regards Cintra On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote: > Resending. > > > From: Shatan, Gregory S. > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 12:54 PM > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: Waiver of 10 Day Requirement for Submission of a Motion > > > All: > > I look forward to meeting with you (and in some cases meeting you) in a few > hours. Marika and I have prepared the following proposed language relating to > the above issue (a Word version is also attached). The new language is in > italics (if you can?t see italics, it begins with ?(the ?Submission > Deadline?)? and proceeds for the next two paragraphs). > > 3.3 Notice of Meetings > > Advance notice of meetings shall be posted on the GNSO website, if reasonably > practicable, at least 7 days in advance of the meeting for Administrative > issues and 14 days in advance for Policy issues. Advance notice shall also be > posted to other GNSO Council work spaces where practical. > > Reports and motions should be submitted to the GNSO Council for inclusion on > the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal > Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar days before the GNSO Council meeting (the > ?Submission Deadline?). > > If a motion is submitted after the Submission Deadline, the GNSO Council shall > consider the motion if the following requirements are met: > > * The motion is submitted to the GNSO Council at least 24 hours in advance of > the GNSO Council meeting; > * The motion is accompanied by a request to consider the motion despite > submission after the Submission Deadline (a ?Request for Consideration?); > * A vote on the Request for Consideration shall be called as the first order > of business for the agenda item that deals with the motion. The vote on the > Request for Consideration must be unanimous (i.e., all Councilors or their > proxies must vote and all votes cast must be in favor of considering the > motion at such GNSO Council meeting) for the motion to be considered at such > GNSO Council meeting. > > If these requirements are not met, the motion shall be considered at the next > GNSO Council meeting, provided that the motion has been submitted prior to the > Submission Deadline for such next GNSO Council meeting. If not, the > requirements above must be met for consideration at such next GNSO Council > meeting. For the avoidance of doubt, if the requirements above are not met, > the motion shall not be considered ?submitted? for purposes of these Rules. > > The time of the meetings may vary to accommodate the different geographic > regions represented by GNSO Council members. By way of guidance, start times > corresponding to local times for the GNSO Council members earlier than 0600 > and later than 2300 should be avoided where possible. > > We look forward to your comments. (Note that this language has not been > reviewed by my constituency, the IPC.) > > Best regards, > > Greg > > Gregory S. Shatan > Deputy Chair | Tech Transactions Group > IP | Technology | Media > ReedSmithLLP > The business of relationships > 599 Lexington Avenue > New York, NY 10022 > 212.549.0275 | Phone > 917.816.6428 | Mobile > 212.521.5450 | Fax > gshatan at reedsmith.com > www.reedsmith.com > > > > > * * * > > This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may > well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on > notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then > delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any > purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your > cooperation. > > * * * > > To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, > unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained > in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written > to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties > under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or > (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related > matters addressed herein. > > Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5056 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mllemineur at gmail.com Mon Apr 14 05:19:07 2014 From: mllemineur at gmail.com (marie-laure Lemineur) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 12:19:07 +0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO WG Definitions of Decision-Making Levels In-Reply-To: References: <6F02F42F-9AC7-43CF-AE3E-FCF69CFB9A61@egyptig.org> Message-ID: Dear all, This is to inform you that, I have recently moved to another country for work reasons and the time zone where I am now based is UTC +7. Since this working group has its sessions scheduled at 19UTC, it makes it difficult for me to attend the conference calls. Therefore, I have taken the decision to withdraw from this particular working group. Since Cintra is the main NPOC representative and I am the alternate, I trust this won?t disrupt too much the work of the group. I wish you all the best of luck and please keep up with the good work you have all been doing so far! Best, Marie-laure On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote: > > I've been giving this some thought (which unfortunately I kept to myself). > There are really 2 problems here. > > 1. Dealing with the "consensus against" problem. This is our explicit > assignment. > 2. The Decision-Making Levels are not well-drafted in certain places. > There is inconsistent use of language (different words used to mean the > same thing), inconsistent use of "unstated phrases" (leaving out the same > or similar phrase when reiterating a point) creating ambiguity, etc. > > We are trying to solve both problems at the same time. We started down > this road because the fix needs to change all of the levels (except perhaps > Divergence). Then, slowly (as we became more comfortable with the > document), we started to see the list's infirmities and tried to resolve > them. In my day job, I call this "drafting creep." The problem with > drafting creep is that it opens up issues beyond the one you were fixing, > and intertwines those two sets of issues in a way that complicates review > by others. This is what Marika is seeing. > > I think we need to reverse course for the moment. I think both (1) and > (2) above are problems that need to be addressed. But only (1) is really > on our plate. > > I'll make the moderately radical suggestion that we keep our hands off > the current levels (in spite of their issues) and address the "consensus > against" issue (which does affect all the levels) in a footnote (Amr's > alternative 3, below). > > At some later time, we can then follow up and improve the drafting of the > levels, separate from dealing with the "consensus against" issue. > > Just my thoughts. I can try to draft a footnote today, but it's a bit of > a messy day (3 ICANN/IG calls plus that "day job"), so I'm not sure if I > can. > > Greg Shatan > > Gregory S. Shatan > Partner > Reed Smith LLP > 599 Lexington Avenue > New York, NY 10022 > 212.549.0275 (Phone) > 917.816.6428 (Mobile) > 212.521.5450 (Fax) > gshatan at reedsmith.com > www.reedsmith.com > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr > Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 7:40 AM > To: Marika Konings > Cc: > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO WG Definitions of > Decision-Making Levels > > > Thanks for the feedback, Marika. I?d be grateful if you pointed out the > specifics in the document on today?s call. I have to admit, I?ve been > struggling with it. I?m no lawyer?, that?s for sure. :) > > In any case, the sub-team?s intent has always been to address revisions to > take into consideration when consensus against WG recommendations is the > situation, as divergence does not reflect this situation (as was the case > with the IGO/INGO WG). That?s probably why the definition of divergence is > the only one that hasn?t really been substantively changed. The focus has > been on the rest so far. > > Still?, we do have the three ways to move forward that Ron had previously > suggested: > > 1. Recommend changes in the definitions to the GNSO Council when the SCI > finalises them. > 2. To not recommend any changes at this time, and postpone changes to see > if they indeed become necessary in the future (although there have been > some recommendations not to do this). > 3. The third option is to not change the definitions, but instead to add a > footnote to them indicating that the decision-making levels could be used > when consensus is for or against WG recommendations. > > Thanks again, Marika. > > Amr > > On Apr 8, 2014, at 1:24 PM, Marika Konings > wrote: > > > Apologies for having missed the F2F meeting in Singapore, but how do > > these changes address the specific question that was put forward by > > the GNSO Council on behalf of the IGO/INGO PDP WG: 'and specifically > > requests the SCI to review and, if deemed appropriate, recommend > > revised or additional language to apply to situations where working > > groups may reach sufficient consensus against a particular proposal > > such that the appropriate consensus level cannot accurately be > > described as No Consensus/Divergence'? The additions / edits may be > > helpful clarifications but they seem to go beyond the scope of the > > specific question put forward to the SCI. But maybe I am missing > > something, so I am looking forward to discussing this further on the > call later today. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Marika > > > > On 08/04/14 13:12, "Amr Elsadr" wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I?ve taken a stab at some very slight word-smithing on the last draft > >> of the WG consensus levels discussed at our F2F in Singapore. I?ve > >> tried to capture the comments made, and a little more and look > >> forward to a discussion on this during today?s call. > >> > >> I have admittedly done this only today, so have not had time to > >> consult with the rest of the sub-team. Greg, Thomas, Cintra?, my > apologies. > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >> Amr > >> > > > > > > > > > * * * > > This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered > confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in > error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by > reply > e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy > it or > use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other > person. Thank you for your cooperation. > > * * * > > To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we > inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal > tax > advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not > intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) > avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state > and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another > party any tax-related matters addressed herein. > > Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Tue Apr 15 16:44:56 2014 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 12:44:56 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO WG Definitions of Decision-Making Levels In-Reply-To: References: <6F02F42F-9AC7-43CF-AE3E-FCF69CFB9A61@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <00d301cf58ca$0b4011a0$21c034e0$@rnapartners.com> Dear Marie-Laure, We are sorry to see you go, particularly as you were the first member of the SCI from the NPOC! Having said that, I am sure that I speak for all members of the Committee, I would like to wish you well in your new position and look forward to seeing you again at the up-coming ICANN meetings. >From an administration point of view, we will look forward to welcoming your new NPOC alternate as and when she or he has been selected. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of marie-laure Lemineur Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 01:19 To: gnso-secs at icann.org Cc: Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO WG Definitions of Decision-Making Levels Dear all, This is to inform you that, I have recently moved to another country for work reasons and the time zone where I am now based is UTC +7. Since this working group has its sessions scheduled at 19UTC, it makes it difficult for me to attend the conference calls. Therefore, I have taken the decision to withdraw from this particular working group. Since Cintra is the main NPOC representative and I am the alternate, I trust this won?t disrupt too much the work of the group. I wish you all the best of luck and please keep up with the good work you have all been doing so far! Best, Marie-laure On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Shatan, Gregory S. > wrote: I've been giving this some thought (which unfortunately I kept to myself). There are really 2 problems here. 1. Dealing with the "consensus against" problem. This is our explicit assignment. 2. The Decision-Making Levels are not well-drafted in certain places. There is inconsistent use of language (different words used to mean the same thing), inconsistent use of "unstated phrases" (leaving out the same or similar phrase when reiterating a point) creating ambiguity, etc. We are trying to solve both problems at the same time. We started down this road because the fix needs to change all of the levels (except perhaps Divergence). Then, slowly (as we became more comfortable with the document), we started to see the list's infirmities and tried to resolve them. In my day job, I call this "drafting creep." The problem with drafting creep is that it opens up issues beyond the one you were fixing, and intertwines those two sets of issues in a way that complicates review by others. This is what Marika is seeing. I think we need to reverse course for the moment. I think both (1) and (2) above are problems that need to be addressed. But only (1) is really on our plate. I'll make the moderately radical suggestion that we keep our hands off the current levels (in spite of their issues) and address the "consensus against" issue (which does affect all the levels) in a footnote (Amr's alternative 3, below). At some later time, we can then follow up and improve the drafting of the levels, separate from dealing with the "consensus against" issue. Just my thoughts. I can try to draft a footnote today, but it's a bit of a messy day (3 ICANN/IG calls plus that "day job"), so I'm not sure if I can. Greg Shatan Gregory S. Shatan Partner Reed Smith LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212.549.0275 (Phone) 917.816.6428 (Mobile) 212.521.5450 (Fax) gshatan at reedsmith.com www.reedsmith.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 7:40 AM To: Marika Konings Cc: > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO WG Definitions of Decision-Making Levels Thanks for the feedback, Marika. I?d be grateful if you pointed out the specifics in the document on today?s call. I have to admit, I?ve been struggling with it. I?m no lawyer?, that?s for sure. :) In any case, the sub-team?s intent has always been to address revisions to take into consideration when consensus against WG recommendations is the situation, as divergence does not reflect this situation (as was the case with the IGO/INGO WG). That?s probably why the definition of divergence is the only one that hasn?t really been substantively changed. The focus has been on the rest so far. Still?, we do have the three ways to move forward that Ron had previously suggested: 1. Recommend changes in the definitions to the GNSO Council when the SCI finalizes them. 2. To not recommend any changes at this time, and postpone changes to see if they indeed become necessary in the future (although there have been some recommendations not to do this). 3. The third option is to not change the definitions, but instead to add a footnote to them indicating that the decision-making levels could be used when consensus is for or against WG recommendations. Thanks again, Marika. Amr On Apr 8, 2014, at 1:24 PM, Marika Konings > wrote: > Apologies for having missed the F2F meeting in Singapore, but how do > these changes address the specific question that was put forward by > the GNSO Council on behalf of the IGO/INGO PDP WG: 'and specifically > requests the SCI to review and, if deemed appropriate, recommend > revised or additional language to apply to situations where working > groups may reach sufficient consensus against a particular proposal > such that the appropriate consensus level cannot accurately be > described as No Consensus/Divergence'? The additions / edits may be > helpful clarifications but they seem to go beyond the scope of the > specific question put forward to the SCI. But maybe I am missing > something, so I am looking forward to discussing this further on the call later today. > > Best regards, > > Marika > > On 08/04/14 13:12, "Amr Elsadr" > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I?ve taken a stab at some very slight word-smithing on the last draft >> of the WG consensus levels discussed at our F2F in Singapore. I?ve >> tried to capture the comments made, and a little more and look >> forward to a discussion on this during today?s call. >> >> I have admittedly done this only today, so have not had time to >> consult with the rest of the sub-team. Greg, Thomas, Cintra?, my apologies. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> > > * * * This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation. * * * To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mllemineur at gmail.com Wed Apr 16 11:35:02 2014 From: mllemineur at gmail.com (marie-laure Lemineur) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 18:35:02 +0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO WG Definitions of Decision-Making Levels In-Reply-To: <00d301cf58ca$0b4011a0$21c034e0$@rnapartners.com> References: <6F02F42F-9AC7-43CF-AE3E-FCF69CFB9A61@egyptig.org> <00d301cf58ca$0b4011a0$21c034e0$@rnapartners.com> Message-ID: Dear Ron, Thank you for your kind words. We will make arrangements for an NPOC alternate soonest. I really think that the work the SCI, and its members, is doing is of great benefit to the GNSO. I was not familiar with its mandate before joining and now, I can see the value in it even if I have been involved only for a very short while. Best, Marie-laure On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Ron Andruff wrote: > Dear Marie-Laure, > > > > We are sorry to see you go, particularly as you were the first member of > the SCI from the NPOC! Having said that, I am sure that I speak for all > members of the Committee, I would like to wish you well in your new > position and look forward to seeing you again at the up-coming ICANN > meetings. > > > > From an administration point of view, we will look forward to welcoming > your new NPOC alternate as and when she or he has been selected. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > RA > > > > *Ron Andruff* > > *RNA Partners* > > *www.rnapartners.com * > > > > *From:* owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *marie-laure Lemineur > *Sent:* Monday, April 14, 2014 01:19 > *To:* gnso-secs at icann.org > > *Cc:* > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO WG Definitions of > Decision-Making Levels > > > > Dear all, > > > > This is to inform you that, I have recently moved to another country for > work reasons and the time zone where I am now based is UTC +7. Since this > working group has its sessions scheduled at 19UTC, it makes it difficult > for me to attend the conference calls. > > > > Therefore, I have taken the decision to withdraw from this particular > working group. Since Cintra is the main NPOC representative and I am the > alternate, I trust this won?t disrupt too much the work of the group. I > wish you all the best of luck and please keep up with the good work you > have all been doing so far! > > > > Best, > > > > Marie-laure > > > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Shatan, Gregory S. > wrote: > > > I've been giving this some thought (which unfortunately I kept to myself). > There are really 2 problems here. > > 1. Dealing with the "consensus against" problem. This is our explicit > assignment. > 2. The Decision-Making Levels are not well-drafted in certain places. > There is inconsistent use of language (different words used to mean the > same thing), inconsistent use of "unstated phrases" (leaving out the same > or similar phrase when reiterating a point) creating ambiguity, etc. > > We are trying to solve both problems at the same time. We started down > this road because the fix needs to change all of the levels (except perhaps > Divergence). Then, slowly (as we became more comfortable with the > document), we started to see the list's infirmities and tried to resolve > them. In my day job, I call this "drafting creep." The problem with > drafting creep is that it opens up issues beyond the one you were fixing, > and intertwines those two sets of issues in a way that complicates review > by others. This is what Marika is seeing. > > I think we need to reverse course for the moment. I think both (1) and > (2) above are problems that need to be addressed. But only (1) is really > on our plate. > > I'll make the moderately radical suggestion that we keep our hands off > the current levels (in spite of their issues) and address the "consensus > against" issue (which does affect all the levels) in a footnote (Amr's > alternative 3, below). > > At some later time, we can then follow up and improve the drafting of the > levels, separate from dealing with the "consensus against" issue. > > Just my thoughts. I can try to draft a footnote today, but it's a bit of > a messy day (3 ICANN/IG calls plus that "day job"), so I'm not sure if I > can. > > Greg Shatan > > Gregory S. Shatan > Partner > Reed Smith LLP > 599 Lexington Avenue > New York, NY 10022 > 212.549.0275 (Phone) > 917.816.6428 (Mobile) > 212.521.5450 (Fax) > gshatan at reedsmith.com > www.reedsmith.com > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr > Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 7:40 AM > To: Marika Konings > Cc: > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO WG Definitions of > Decision-Making Levels > > > Thanks for the feedback, Marika. I?d be grateful if you pointed out the > specifics in the document on today?s call. I have to admit, I?ve been > struggling with it. I?m no lawyer?, that?s for sure. :) > > In any case, the sub-team?s intent has always been to address revisions to > take into consideration when consensus against WG recommendations is the > situation, as divergence does not reflect this situation (as was the case > with the IGO/INGO WG). That?s probably why the definition of divergence is > the only one that hasn?t really been substantively changed. The focus has > been on the rest so far. > > Still?, we do have the three ways to move forward that Ron had previously > suggested: > > 1. Recommend changes in the definitions to the GNSO Council when the SCI > finalizes them. > > 2. To not recommend any changes at this time, and postpone changes to see > if they indeed become necessary in the future (although there have been > some recommendations not to do this). > 3. The third option is to not change the definitions, but instead to add a > footnote to them indicating that the decision-making levels could be used > when consensus is for or against WG recommendations. > > Thanks again, Marika. > > Amr > > On Apr 8, 2014, at 1:24 PM, Marika Konings > wrote: > > > Apologies for having missed the F2F meeting in Singapore, but how do > > these changes address the specific question that was put forward by > > the GNSO Council on behalf of the IGO/INGO PDP WG: 'and specifically > > requests the SCI to review and, if deemed appropriate, recommend > > revised or additional language to apply to situations where working > > groups may reach sufficient consensus against a particular proposal > > such that the appropriate consensus level cannot accurately be > > described as No Consensus/Divergence'? The additions / edits may be > > helpful clarifications but they seem to go beyond the scope of the > > specific question put forward to the SCI. But maybe I am missing > > something, so I am looking forward to discussing this further on the > call later today. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Marika > > > > On 08/04/14 13:12, "Amr Elsadr" wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I?ve taken a stab at some very slight word-smithing on the last draft > >> of the WG consensus levels discussed at our F2F in Singapore. I?ve > >> tried to capture the comments made, and a little more and look > >> forward to a discussion on this during today?s call. > >> > >> I have admittedly done this only today, so have not had time to > >> consult with the rest of the sub-team. Greg, Thomas, Cintra?, my > apologies. > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >> Amr > >> > > > > > > > > * * * > > This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered > confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in > error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by > reply > e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy > it or > use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other > person. Thank you for your cooperation. > > * * * > > To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we > inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal > tax > advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not > intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) > avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state > and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another > party any tax-related matters addressed herein. > > Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From GShatan at reedsmith.com Thu Apr 17 01:40:39 2014 From: GShatan at reedsmith.com (Shatan, Gregory S.) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 01:40:39 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft Message-ID: All: Following up on our last meeting, I attach a revised version of the amendment to the Operating Procedures dealing with ?late? submission of a motion, with my revisions marked in ?track changes.? I look forward to your comments. Best regards, Greg Gregory S. Shatan Deputy Chair | Tech Transactions Group IP | Technology | Media ReedSmithLLP The business of relationships 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212.549.0275 | Phone 917.816.6428 | Mobile 212.521.5450 | Fax gshatan at reedsmith.com www.reedsmith.com * * * This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation. * * * To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Motion waiver draft language - 20 March 2014.DOC Type: application/msword Size: 17920 bytes Desc: Motion waiver draft language - 20 March 2014.DOC URL: From marika.konings at icann.org Thu Apr 17 08:33:36 2014 From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 01:33:36 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft Message-ID: Thanks, Greg. I'm still not clear to why it would say 'For the avoidance of doubt, if the requirements above are not met, the motion shall not be considered ?submitted?? Why can't it be considered submitted, but just not eligible to be considered for a vote at the meeting? The current practice is also that if a motion is submitted after the deadline it may get discussed, just not voted on during the meeting, but there is no need to resubmit it for the next meeting as it is already considered submitted and automatically carried over. Maybe I'm missing something? Best regards, Marika From: , "Gregory S." Date: Thursday 17 April 2014 03:40 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft All: Following up on our last meeting, I attach a revised version of the amendment to the Operating Procedures dealing with ?late? submission of a motion, with my revisions marked in ?track changes.? I look forward to your comments. Best regards, Greg Gregory S. Shatan Deputy Chair | Tech Transactions Group IP | Technology | Media ReedSmithLLP The business of relationships 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212.549.0275 | Phone 917.816.6428 | Mobile 212.521.5450 | Fax gshatan at reedsmith.com www.reedsmith.com * * * This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation. * * * To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5056 bytes Desc: not available URL: From GShatan at reedsmith.com Thu Apr 17 16:13:27 2014 From: GShatan at reedsmith.com (Shatan, Gregory S.) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 16:13:27 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I should probably be more specific about the reason for that statement - it is really aimed at the "resubmission of a motion" rule. I want to be clear that a late motion that doesn't get through this process does not have a "strike" against it in the resubmission of a motion rule. From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:34 AM To: Shatan, Gregory S.; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft Thanks, Greg. I'm still not clear to why it would say 'For the avoidance of doubt, if the requirements above are not met, the motion shall not be considered "submitted"? Why can't it be considered submitted, but just not eligible to be considered for a vote at the meeting? The current practice is also that if a motion is submitted after the deadline it may get discussed, just not voted on during the meeting, but there is no need to resubmit it for the next meeting as it is already considered submitted and automatically carried over. Maybe I'm missing something? Best regards, Marika From: , "Gregory S." > Date: Thursday 17 April 2014 03:40 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft All: Following up on our last meeting, I attach a revised version of the amendment to the Operating Procedures dealing with "late" submission of a motion, with my revisions marked in "track changes." I look forward to your comments. Best regards, Greg Gregory S. Shatan Deputy Chair | Tech Transactions Group IP | Technology | Media ReedSmithLLP The business of relationships 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212.549.0275 | Phone 917.816.6428 | Mobile 212.521.5450 | Fax gshatan at reedsmith.com www.reedsmith.com * * * This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation. * * * To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Fri Apr 18 15:20:59 2014 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 08:20:59 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER re: Action items/Next Meeting: SCI Meeting 08 April Message-ID: Dear All, Please find below the action items and their updates from the call on 08 April. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/08+April+2014. Our next meeting is scheduled for **Tuesday, 22 April at 1900 UTC for 1 hour (12:00 PDT , 15:00 EDT, 20:00 London, 21:00 CEST).** An announcement was sent separately. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director SCI Meeting ? 08 April ? Updated Actions 1. Review of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines Consensus Levels (sub team: Amr, Cintra, Greg, Thomas) -- Propose language to the list for the footnote. UPDATE: Staff will assist in setting up a call for the sub team. 2. Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures (sub team: Greg, Marie-Laure) -- Greg will provide some revised language based on discussion in the meeting, including a clarification on resubmitted motions. UPDATE: Greg has circulated a revised version (attached and on the wiki). 3. Voting by Email: (sub team: Anne, Avri, Thomas) -- Meet to review the issue of broadening the scope. UPDATE: staff will assist in setting up a call for the sub team. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Motion waiver draft language - 20 Mar-Rev 16 Apr.doc Type: application/msword Size: 28160 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From GShatan at reedsmith.com Fri Apr 18 18:42:04 2014 From: GShatan at reedsmith.com (Shatan, Gregory S.) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 18:42:04 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposal Regarding GNSO WG Definitions of Decision-Making Levels Message-ID: All: I am sending to the entire SCI a proposal relating to the "consensus (etc.) against" issue we have been discussing. This was circulated to the subteam (Amr, Cintra, Thomas and Mary) earlier this week. Based on discussions in and after Singapore, this proposal does not change the Decision-Making Levels language in the text of the PDP Manual. Instead, this proposal contains a new explanatory footnote appended to the list of existing consensus levels. (Please note that I have included the discussion of "divergence" in the footnote because a few people in the IGO/INGO Working Group insisted that the situation should be described as "Divergence" even though it was clear that a strong majority of the Working Group had coalesced around a position actively opposing a recommendation. While their position was (in my opinion) more political than logical, I thought it should be dealt with nonetheless.) I suggest that, if and when this is handed up to the GNSO Council, we should note to the Council that we found a number of notable linguistic/drafting flaws in the consensus levels. However, after prior revisions and deliberation, we restrained ourselves from fixing these flaws at this time so that the "consensus against" issue could be dealt with in isolation and with clarity. I suggest that we recommend that the drafting issues be dealt with in the near future. I look forward to your comments. Best regards, Greg Gregory S. Shatan Partner Reed Smith LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212.549.0275 (Phone) 917.816.6428 (Mobile) 212.521.5450 (Fax) gshatan at reedsmith.com www.reedsmith.com * * * This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation. * * * To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Current Consensus Levels - Revised.DOCX Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 15328 bytes Desc: Current Consensus Levels - Revised.DOCX URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Fri Apr 18 19:36:41 2014 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 12:36:41 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposal Regarding GNSO WG Definitions of Decision-Making Levels Message-ID: Greg, I have added this to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/22+April+2014. Best regards, Julie On 4/18/14 2:42 PM, "Shatan, Gregory S." wrote: >All: > >I am sending to the entire SCI a proposal relating to the "consensus >(etc.) against" issue we have been discussing. This was circulated to >the subteam (Amr, Cintra, Thomas and Mary) earlier this week. Based on >discussions in and after Singapore, this proposal does not change the >Decision-Making Levels language in the text of the PDP Manual. Instead, >this proposal contains a new explanatory footnote appended to the list of >existing consensus levels. > >(Please note that I have included the discussion of "divergence" in the >footnote because a few people in the IGO/INGO Working Group insisted that >the situation should be described as "Divergence" even though it was >clear that a strong majority of the Working Group had coalesced around a >position actively opposing a recommendation. While their position was (in >my opinion) more political than logical, I thought it should be dealt >with nonetheless.) > >I suggest that, if and when this is handed up to the GNSO Council, we >should note to the Council that we found a number of notable >linguistic/drafting flaws in the consensus levels. However, after prior >revisions and deliberation, we restrained ourselves from fixing these >flaws at this time so that the "consensus against" issue could be dealt >with in isolation and with clarity. I suggest that we recommend that the >drafting issues be dealt with in the near future. > >I look forward to your comments. > >Best regards, > >Greg > >Gregory S. Shatan >Partner >Reed Smith LLP >599 Lexington Avenue >New York, NY 10022 >212.549.0275 (Phone) >917.816.6428 (Mobile) >212.521.5450 (Fax) >gshatan at reedsmith.com >www.reedsmith.com > > > > * * * > >This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered >confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it >in >error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by >reply >e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy >it or >use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other >person. Thank you for your cooperation. > > * * * > >To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we >inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal >tax >advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not >intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) >avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state >and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to >another >party any tax-related matters addressed herein. > >Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Fri Apr 18 19:38:13 2014 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 12:38:13 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft Message-ID: Greg, I have added this to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/22+April+2014. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: , "Gregory S." Date: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 9:40 PM To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft All: Following up on our last meeting, I attach a revised version of the amendment to the Operating Procedures dealing with ?late? submission of a motion, with my revisions marked in ?track changes.? I look forward to your comments. Best regards, Greg Gregory S. Shatan Deputy Chair | Tech Transactions Group IP | Technology | Media ReedSmithLLP The business of relationships 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212.549.0275 | Phone 917.816.6428 | Mobile 212.521.5450 | Fax gshatan at reedsmith.com www.reedsmith.com * * * This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation. * * * To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From GShatan at reedsmith.com Tue Apr 22 19:10:55 2014 From: GShatan at reedsmith.com (Shatan, Gregory S.) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 19:10:55 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FW: Call to facilitate finalization of email voting proposal for SCI? In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9A24F44F8@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9A24ECDB1@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <534FA508.8000304@acm.org> <13587D36-FDC8-4F19-9BE0-E5D1E58A30D7@anwaelte.de> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9A24ED48F@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <534FE0CD.4080502@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9A24ED56A@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <534FE4F2.7090305@acm.org> <535151A5.3030007@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9A24F44F8@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: I note that Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC primary rep to the SCI) sent apologies for this call to a subgroup of the SCI, but did not send it to the full group. I'm forwarding it to the full group for the record. Greg Gregory S. Shatan Partner Reed Smith LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212.549.0275 (Phone) 917.816.6428 (Mobile) 212.521.5450 (Fax) gshatan at reedsmith.com www.reedsmith.com -----Original Message----- From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrrlaw.com] Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 12:41 PM To: 'Mary Wong'; Avri Doria; 'Thomas Rickert' Cc: 'Ron Andruff'; Shatan, Gregory S. Subject: RE: Call to facilitate finalization of email voting proposal for SCI? Mary, Can you please set up a call? I am presenting Continuing Legal Education to the Arizona State Bar tomorrow and unfortunately will have to miss SCI again - I hope Greg will be on the line. I know Avri wants to work collaboratively online somehow. I think she mentioned this works even better if all are on a call and to me that makes the most sense. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | Suite 700 One South Church Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com -----Original Message----- From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong at icann.org] Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 11:36 AM To: Avri Doria; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert' Subject: Re: Call to facilitate finalization of email voting proposal for SCI? Thanks, Avri. I believe that ICANN is working on increasing and improving collaboration tools in conjunction with the new website rollout and related projects, so hopefully for policy development work we'll have some better tools at our disposal soon. Please let me know how I can assist you all with finalizing this document and task. Thanks much for picking this up! Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong at icann.org * One World. One Internet. * -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria Date: Friday, April 18, 2014 12:24 PM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" , 'Thomas Rickert' Cc: Mary Wong Subject: Re: Call to facilitate finalization of email voting proposal for SCI? >Hi, > >Since I only get to in fragmentary moments between other activities, I >am doing my editing on google drive: > >https://docs.google.com/document/d/1J6jFx45SeWW5DKkxG0j8JT3dt1l3P6aDwvm >JNf >6jbcw/edit?usp=sharing > >I have set it up so anyone with the URL can read and comment. > >You all have not added any editors, because I got the impression some >would prefer not to be included. > >Once I finish my edit pass, I will export a doc file containing my >comments and any edits I propose. > >If you want to be added to the editing list, please let me know and I >will add you. Tell me what address you want me to use. > >cheers > >avri > > > >On 17-Apr-14 10:28, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> The problem with the ICANN wiki is that is is just as static as >> passing document back and forth. >> >> My experience is actually that I find the collaborative editing >> environment much more of a sharing envrionemnt. Especially when >> using them while on a phone call or in person. >> >> I wish ICANN offered such active collaborative editing tools. >> >> As for security, what we are doing is not something that needs to be >> secret, in fact it should optimally be visible to anyone in the world >> that wants to see it. Or even comment. Google drive allows that. >> >> >> avri >> >> >> On 17-Apr-14 10:21, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> Avri, Lots of folks have expressed concern over security issues in >>> those workspaces. Is there some reason we can't work with ICANN >>> tools and email? Separately, none of that stuff is, from my point >>> of view, as collaborative as a phone call, which is of course not as >>> collaborative as a live meeting, but alas! Anne >>> >>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | Suite >>> 700 One South Church Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) >>> 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] >>> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 7:10 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>> 'Thomas Rickert' Cc: Mary Wong Subject: Re: Call to facilitate >>> finalization of email voting proposal for SCI? >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Ok with me. However, I will be absorbed in the WGEC the week after. >>> But this is less intense so should be able to find a time early in >>> the morning or late in the evening UTC. >>> >>> I still strongly support the idea of finding a way to do online >>> collaborative work. I the meantime I will try to take an edit pass >>> through the document. Might even do it in Google drive, we can >>> always export word docs from that if needed. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> Ps I know it is disgraceful for a non commercial type to be so >>> hooked on a commercial product. It is just such a good tool and >>> good tool trumps all NC-C prejudice. >>> >>> >>> On 17-Apr-14 09:59, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>>> Let's just schedule the call for after the NetMundial meeting. >>>> Thanks, Anne >>>> >>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | Suite >>>> 700 One South Church Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) >>>> 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>>> -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Rickert >>>> [mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 3:46 AM >>>> To: Avri Doria Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Mary Wong Subject: Re: >>>> Call to facilitate finalization of email voting proposal for SCI? >>>> >>>> Hi all, I could offer today for a call. Friday and Monday are >>>> difficult for me as I am quite hooked up with private matters (both >>>> are public holidays in Germany - Good Friday and Easter). I can do >>>> online collaboration, though. >>>> >>>> Best, Thomas >>>> >>>> >>>> Am 17.04.2014 um 11:55 schrieb Avri Doria : >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I am flying off to NetMundial on Sunday so can't do it after that. >>>>> >>>>> Can we put it on google drive or another pad and do online >>>>> collaborative work? >>>>> >>>>> avri >>>>> >>>>> On 16-Apr-14 19:30, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>>>>> Mary, Monday would be doable for an initial discussion. I am >>>>>> out of the office Friday but have a very clear day on Monday. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you, Anne >>>>>> >>>>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>>>>> Suite 700 One South Church Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>>>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | >>>>>> www.LRRLaw.com -----Original Message----- From: Mary Wong >>>>>> [mailto:mary.wong at icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 >>>>>> 4:18 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert >>>>>> Subject: Call to facilitate finalization of email voting proposal >>>>>> for SCI? >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Anne, Avri and Thomas, >>>>>> >>>>>> As suggested by Anne in her email (below), I am writing to ask if >>>>>> you would like staff to assist with scheduling a call among you >>>>>> to discuss the email voting issue. As the next SCI meeting is >>>>>> next Tuesday, I recognize that time may be an issue but >>>>>> nonetheless, it may be that you would like to at least do a quick >>>>>> call before then. You may wish, for example, to discuss the draft >>>>>> circulated by Anne last Tuesday and possibly also set a tentative >>>>>> date for completion of the proposal. >>>>>> >>>>>> If so, would any time on Friday or Monday suit? Please let me >>>>>> know and I will go ahead and schedule the call. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks and cheers Mary >>>>>> >>>>>> Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for >>>>>> Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 >>>>>> Email: mary.wong at icann.org >>>>>> >>>>>> * One World. One Internet. * >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: , Anne >>>>>> Date: Tuesday, April 8, 2014 1:24 PM To: >>>>>> "'Shatan, Gregory S.'" , 'Amr Elsadr' >>>>>> , Marika Konings >>>>>> Cc: >>>>>> "" >>>>>> Subject: RE: >>>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO WG Definitions of Decision-Making >>>>>> Levels >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks Greg. I think this is a helpful observation. >>>>>>> Regarding "day job", regrettably mine conflicts for today's SCI >>>>>>> call . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regarding the e-mail voting issues, I had circulated in January >>>>>>> a redline with questions about that process. It is attached >>>>>>> again, although it may be impacted by some suggestions that were >>>>>>> made regarding the 10 day waiver recommendation. In this >>>>>>> regard, my comment is that e-mail voting is not appropriate for >>>>>>> unanimous consent to waive the >>>>>>> 10 day rule since it does not seem to me that it could meet the >>>>>>> litmus test of "participation in full discussion" that applies >>>>>>> to e-mail voting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> With respect to both the consensus levels and the waiver of the >>>>>>> ten day rule, whatever is determined in today's call will have >>>>>>> to be taken back to IPC for formal input. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I also think, as I said at the end of the Singapore meeting, >>>>>>> that Thomas, Avri, and I need to schedule a separate call on the >>>>>>> e-mail voting issue as a subgroup. Perhaps we could ask staff >>>>>>> to assist in scheduling the call? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Very sorry I cannot participate today but I must attend a >>>>>>> meeting of all lawyers in my firm's Tucson office occurring at >>>>>>> the same hour. Thank you, Anne >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>>>>>> Suite 700 One South Church Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>>>>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | >>>>>>> www.LRRLaw.com -----Original Message----- From: >>>>>>> owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of >>>>>>> Shatan, Gregory S. Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 8:23 AM To: >>>>>>> 'Amr Elsadr'; Marika Konings Cc: >>>>>>> Subject: RE: >>>>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO WG Definitions of Decision-Making >>>>>>> Levels >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've been giving this some thought (which unfortunately I kept >>>>>>> to myself). There are really 2 problems here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Dealing with the "consensus against" problem. This is our >>>>>>> explicit assignment. 2. The Decision-Making Levels are not >>>>>>> well-drafted in certain places. There is inconsistent use of >>>>>>> language (different words used to mean the same thing), >>>>>>> inconsistent use of "unstated phrases" (leaving out the same or >>>>>>> similar phrase when reiterating a point) creating ambiguity, >>>>>>> etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We are trying to solve both problems at the same time. We >>>>>>> started down this road because the fix needs to change all of >>>>>>> the levels (except perhaps Divergence). Then, slowly (as we >>>>>>> became more comfortable with the document), we started to see >>>>>>> the list's infirmities and tried to resolve them. In my day >>>>>>> job, I call this "drafting creep." The problem with drafting >>>>>>> creep is that it opens up issues beyond the one you were fixing, >>>>>>> and intertwines those two sets of issues in a way that >>>>>>> complicates review by others. This is what Marika is seeing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think we need to reverse course for the moment. I think both >>>>>>> (1) and (2) above are problems that need to be addressed. But >>>>>>> only (1) is really on our plate. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'll make the moderately radical suggestion that we keep our >>>>>>> hands off the current levels (in spite of their issues) and >>>>>>> address the "consensus against" issue (which does affect all the >>>>>>> levels) in a footnote (Amr's alternative 3, below). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At some later time, we can then follow up and improve the >>>>>>> drafting of the levels, separate from dealing with the >>>>>>> "consensus against" issue. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just my thoughts. I can try to draft a footnote today, but it's >>>>>>> a bit of a messy day (3 ICANN/IG calls plus that "day job"), so >>>>>>> I'm not sure if I can. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Greg Shatan >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gregory S. Shatan Partner Reed Smith LLP 599 Lexington Avenue >>>>>>> New York, NY 10022 212.549.0275 (Phone) 917.816.6428 >>>>>>> (Mobile) 212.521.5450 (Fax) gshatan at reedsmith.com >>>>>>> www.reedsmith.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: >>>>>>> owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr >>>>>>> Elsadr Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 7:40 AM To: Marika Konings >>>>>>> Cc: Subject: Re: >>>>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO WG Definitions of Decision-Making >>>>>>> Levels >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for the feedback, Marika. I?d be grateful if you pointed >>>>>>> out the specifics in the document on today?s call. I have to >>>>>>> admit, I?ve been struggling with it. I?m no lawyer?, that?s for >>>>>>> sure. :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In any case, the sub-team?s intent has always been to address >>>>>>> revisions to take into consideration when consensus against WG >>>>>>> recommendations is the situation, as divergence does not reflect >>>>>>> this situation (as was the case with the IGO/INGO WG). That?s >>>>>>> probably why the definition of divergence is the only one that >>>>>>> hasn?t really been substantively changed. The focus has been on >>>>>>> the rest so far. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Still?, we do have the three ways to move forward that Ron had >>>>>>> previously suggested: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Recommend changes in the definitions to the GNSO Council when >>>>>>> the SCI finalises them. 2. To not recommend any changes at this >>>>>>> time, and postpone changes to see if they indeed become >>>>>>> necessary in the future (although there have been some >>>>>>> recommendations not to do this). 3. The third option is to not >>>>>>> change the definitions, but instead to add a footnote to them >>>>>>> indicating that the decision-making levels could be used when >>>>>>> consensus is for or against WG recommendations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks again, Marika. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Amr >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Apr 8, 2014, at 1:24 PM, Marika Konings >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Apologies for having missed the F2F meeting in Singapore, but >>>>>>>> how do these changes address the specific question that was put >>>>>>>> forward by the GNSO Council on behalf of the IGO/INGO PDP WG: >>>>>>>> 'and specifically requests the SCI to review and, if deemed >>>>>>>> appropriate, recommend revised or additional language to apply >>>>>>>> to situations where working groups may reach sufficient >>>>>>>> consensus against a particular proposal such that the >>>>>>>> appropriate consensus level cannot accurately be described as >>>>>>>> No Consensus/Divergence'? The additions / edits may be helpful >>>>>>>> clarifications but they seem to go beyond the scope of the >>>>>>>> specific question put forward to the SCI. But maybe I am >>>>>>>> missing something, so I am looking forward to discussing this >>>>>>>> further on the call later today. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Marika >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 08/04/14 13:12, "Amr Elsadr" >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I?ve taken a stab at some very slight word-smithing on the >>>>>>>>> last draft of the WG consensus levels discussed at our F2F in >>>>>>>>> Singapore. I?ve tried to capture the comments made, and a >>>>>>>>> little more and look forward to a discussion on this during >>>>>>>>> today?s call. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have admittedly done this only today, so have not had time >>>>>>>>> to consult with the rest of the sub-team. Greg, Thomas, >>>>>>>>> Cintra?, my apologies. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Amr >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * * * >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered >>>>>>> confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have >>>>>>> received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please >>>>>>> notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this >>>>>>> message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for >>>>>>> any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. >>>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * * * >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we >>>>>>> inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. >>>>>>> Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including >>>>>>> any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and >>>>>>> cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under >>>>>>> the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local >>>>>>> provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to >>>>>>> another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use >>>>>>> of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. >>>>>>> If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the >>>>>>> intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for >>>>>>> delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient >>>>>>> you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or >>>>>>> copying of this message or any attachment is strictly >>>>>>> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, >>>>>>> please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The >>>>>>> information transmitted in this message and any attachments may >>>>>>> be privileged, is intended only for the personal and >>>>>>> confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by >>>>>>> the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. ?2510-2521. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we >>>>>>> advise you that if this message or any attachments 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>> >>>>>> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of >>>>>> the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the >>>>>> reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended >>>>>> recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the >>>>>> message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby >>>>>> notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this >>>>>> message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have >>>>>> received this communication in error, please notify us >>>>>> immediately by replying to the sender. The information >>>>>> transmitted in this message and any attachments may be >>>>>> privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential >>>>>> use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic >>>>>> Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. ?2510-2521. >>>>>> >>>>>> In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we >>>>>> advise you that if this message or any attachments 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. >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of >>>> the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader >>>> of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or >>>> the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or >>>> attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that >>>> any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any >>>> attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this >>>> communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to >>>> the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any >>>> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal >>>> and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by >>>> the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. ?2510-2521. >>>> >>>> In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise >>>> you that if this message or any attachments 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of >>> the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader >>> of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or >>> the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or >>> attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that >>> any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any >>> attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this >>> communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to >>> the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any >>> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and >>> confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the >>> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. ?2510-2521. >>> >>> In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise >>> you that if this message or any attachments 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. >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. ?2510-2521. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this message or any attachments 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 terri.agnew at icann.org Tue Apr 22 19:35:58 2014 From: terri.agnew at icann.org (Terri Agnew) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 12:35:58 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] MP3 recording of the SCI meeting - 22 April 2014 Message-ID: Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Tuesday, 22 April 2014 at 19:00 UTC. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20140422-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#apr (transcripts and recording are found on the calendar page) Attendees: Ronald Andruff - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Primary - Chair Angie Graves - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Alternate Greg Shatan - IPC - Alternate Jennifer Wolfe - Nominating Committee Appointee - Primary Jennifer Standiford - Registrar Stakeholder Group - Primary Amr Elsadr - NCUC Alternate Apologies: Cintra Sooknanan: NPOC Primary - SCI Vice Chair Thomas Rickert - Nominating Committee Appointee - Alternate Anne Aikman Scalese - IPC - Primary ICANN Staff: Marika Konings Mary Wong Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew Adobe Chat Transcript 22 April 2014 Terri Agnew:Dear all, welcome to the SCI meeting on the 22nd April 2014 at 19:00 UTC Greg Shatan:Waiting to get on the audio bridge.... Marika Konings:Quite a few alternate members missing from the list: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/4.+Members Marika Konings:4 alternate positions not filled Marika Konings:We do still need an SOI for the NCSG alternate, but we will follow up on that Ron A:Thank you Marika. Mary Wong:Deadline for documents to next GNSO Council meeting is 28 April. Terri Agnew:Jennifer Standiford has joined Jennifer Standiford:Sorry I am late - my previous meeting was running behind Marika Konings:And there is also NetMundial - some members may be travelling there. Mary Wong:Council call is 8 May (deadline is 28 April) Marika Konings:Greg, the proposed changes would first need to be posted for public comment before being submitted to the GNSO Council Marika Konings:as it concerns changes to the operating procedures Marika Konings:The Charter provides that: 1 representative from each constituency/SG Amr Elsadr:Apologies for being late. I was delayed. Terri Agnew:Amr, I have added you to the attenance Amr Elsadr:Thanks Terri. I'm dialling in now. Amr Elsadr:Hi. I just dialled in, and NCSG/NPOC/NCUC seem to be the topic of conversation. ?? Amr Elsadr:Thanks Ron. Amr Elsadr:I'm guessing quite a few folks are at Net-Mundial. Marika Konings:Attendance has actually picked up (RySG, ISPs, NPOC, NCSG still missing though) Amr Elsadr:Thanks. That was quick. Bye. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5417 bytes Desc: not available URL: From GShatan at reedsmith.com Tue Apr 22 19:53:08 2014 From: GShatan at reedsmith.com (Shatan, Gregory S.) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 19:53:08 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As discussed today on the SCI call, I agree with Marika's comment below, and I have deleted the sentence in question. In the attached draft, I have accepted all the changes from the prior draft and then deleted that sentence. There were no other comments on the list or on the call. I would suggest that this draft should be considered final (subject only to "accepting" the deletion of the sentence so that this is a clean document) for purposes of moving to the next step with this amendment to the Operating Procedures. Best regards, Greg Gregory S. Shatan Partner Reed Smith LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212.549.0275 (Phone) 917.816.6428 (Mobile) 212.521.5450 (Fax) gshatan at reedsmith.com www.reedsmith.com From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:34 AM To: Shatan, Gregory S.; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft Thanks, Greg. I'm still not clear to why it would say 'For the avoidance of doubt, if the requirements above are not met, the motion shall not be considered "submitted"? Why can't it be considered submitted, but just not eligible to be considered for a vote at the meeting? The current practice is also that if a motion is submitted after the deadline it may get discussed, just not voted on during the meeting, but there is no need to resubmit it for the next meeting as it is already considered submitted and automatically carried over. Maybe I'm missing something? Best regards, Marika From: , "Gregory S." > Date: Thursday 17 April 2014 03:40 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft All: Following up on our last meeting, I attach a revised version of the amendment to the Operating Procedures dealing with "late" submission of a motion, with my revisions marked in "track changes." I look forward to your comments. Best regards, Greg Gregory S. Shatan Deputy Chair | Tech Transactions Group IP | Technology | Media ReedSmithLLP The business of relationships 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212.549.0275 | Phone 917.816.6428 | Mobile 212.521.5450 | Fax gshatan at reedsmith.com www.reedsmith.com * * * This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation. * * * To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Motion waiver draft language - 22 April 2014.DOC Type: application/msword Size: 17408 bytes Desc: Motion waiver draft language - 22 April 2014.DOC URL: From aelsadr at egyptig.org Tue Apr 22 20:52:33 2014 From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 22:52:33 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Greg and all, I know I?ve brought this up repetitively and I hate being a nag, but there?s still an inconvenient loophole in this text regarding resubmission of motions. On its meeting of March 26th, 2014, the GNSO Council approved the SCI recommendation to amend the GNSO Operating Procedures by adding sections 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 detailing the guidelines of motions being resubmitted. Section 4.3.3, claus number 1 reads as follows: > ?1. Explanation: The Councilor submitting the motion must also submit an explanation for the resubmission of the motion. The explanation need not accompany the motion when it is resubmitted; however, the explanation must be submitted no later than the deadline for submitting the motion (i.e., no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day 10 calendar days before the Council meeting at which the motion is to be reconsidered). The explanation does not need to meet any requirements other than being submitted in a timely manner.? If the SCI determines that it would like the 10-day rule waiver to also apply to motions being resubmitted (and not exclusively to motions being submitted for the first time) in its recommendation to the Council, then there needs to be clarifying text to that effect. If the SCI does not recommend that the waiver should apply to resubmitted motions, then no further action is necessary. If the former is true, and not the latter, the the way I read it, the required clarification should either be added as a fourth bullet to 3.3.2 referencing 4.3.3, or perhaps an added numbered item to 4.3.4 (Limitations and Exceptions to Resubmission of a Motion) referring to the waiver rule in 3.3.2. Without these changes, I can?t see how the text of the operating procedures will support the waiver rule being applied to resubmitted motions in the event that the need arises. Thanks. Amr On Apr 22, 2014, at 9:53 PM, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote: > As discussed today on the SCI call, I agree with Marika?s comment below, and I have deleted the sentence in question. In the attached draft, I have accepted all the changes from the prior draft and then deleted that sentence. There were no other comments on the list or on the call. > > I would suggest that this draft should be considered final (subject only to ?accepting? the deletion of the sentence so that this is a clean document) for purposes of moving to the next step with this amendment to the Operating Procedures. > > Best regards, > > Greg > > Gregory S. Shatan > Partner > Reed Smith LLP > 599 Lexington Avenue > New York, NY 10022 > 212.549.0275 (Phone) > 917.816.6428 (Mobile) > 212.521.5450 (Fax) > gshatan at reedsmith.com > www.reedsmith.com > > > > From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:34 AM > To: Shatan, Gregory S.; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft > > Thanks, Greg. I'm still not clear to why it would say 'For the avoidance of doubt, if the requirements above are not met, the motion shall not be considered ?submitted?? Why can't it be considered submitted, but just not eligible to be considered for a vote at the meeting? The current practice is also that if a motion is submitted after the deadline it may get discussed, just not voted on during the meeting, but there is no need to resubmit it for the next meeting as it is already considered submitted and automatically carried over. Maybe I'm missing something? > > Best regards, > > Marika > > From: , "Gregory S." > Date: Thursday 17 April 2014 03:40 > To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft > > All: > > Following up on our last meeting, I attach a revised version of the amendment to the Operating Procedures dealing with ?late? submission of a motion, with my revisions marked in ?track changes.? > > I look forward to your comments. > > Best regards, > > Greg > > Gregory S. Shatan > Deputy Chair | Tech Transactions Group > IP | Technology | Media > ReedSmithLLP > The business of relationships > 599 Lexington Avenue > New York, NY 10022 > 212.549.0275 | Phone > 917.816.6428 | Mobile > 212.521.5450 | Fax > gshatan at reedsmith.com > www.reedsmith.com > > > * * * > This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation. > * * * > To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. > Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From GShatan at reedsmith.com Thu Apr 24 00:50:47 2014 From: GShatan at reedsmith.com (Shatan, Gregory S.) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 00:50:47 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think the solution to this problem is to revise the language quoted below and keep the waiver section as is. For example: "1. Explanation: The Councilor submitting the motion must also submit an explanation for the resubmission of the motion. The explanation need not accompany the motion when it is resubmitted; however, the explanation must be submitted no later than the deadline for submitting the motion (i.e., no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day 10 calendar days before the Council meeting at which the motion is to be reconsidered, unless the requirements for late submission in Section 3.3.2 are also met). The explanation does not need to meet any requirements other than being submitted in a timely manner." Thoughts? Greg From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 4:53 PM To: Shatan, Gregory S. Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft Hi Greg and all, I know I've brought this up repetitively and I hate being a nag, but there's still an inconvenient loophole in this text regarding resubmission of motions. On its meeting of March 26th, 2014, the GNSO Council approved the SCI recommendation to amend the GNSO Operating Procedures by adding sections 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 detailing the guidelines of motions being resubmitted. Section 4.3.3, claus number 1 reads as follows: "1. Explanation: The Councilor submitting the motion must also submit an explanation for the resubmission of the motion. The explanation need not accompany the motion when it is resubmitted; however, the explanation must be submitted no later than the deadline for submitting the motion (i.e., no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day 10 calendar days before the Council meeting at which the motion is to be reconsidered). The explanation does not need to meet any requirements other than being submitted in a timely manner." If the SCI determines that it would like the 10-day rule waiver to also apply to motions being resubmitted (and not exclusively to motions being submitted for the first time) in its recommendation to the Council, then there needs to be clarifying text to that effect. If the SCI does not recommend that the waiver should apply to resubmitted motions, then no further action is necessary. If the former is true, and not the latter, the the way I read it, the required clarification should either be added as a fourth bullet to 3.3.2 referencing 4.3.3, or perhaps an added numbered item to 4.3.4 (Limitations and Exceptions to Resubmission of a Motion) referring to the waiver rule in 3.3.2. Without these changes, I can't see how the text of the operating procedures will support the waiver rule being applied to resubmitted motions in the event that the need arises. Thanks. Amr On Apr 22, 2014, at 9:53 PM, Shatan, Gregory S. > wrote: As discussed today on the SCI call, I agree with Marika's comment below, and I have deleted the sentence in question. In the attached draft, I have accepted all the changes from the prior draft and then deleted that sentence. There were no other comments on the list or on the call. I would suggest that this draft should be considered final (subject only to "accepting" the deletion of the sentence so that this is a clean document) for purposes of moving to the next step with this amendment to the Operating Procedures. Best regards, Greg Gregory S. Shatan Partner Reed Smith LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212.549.0275 (Phone) 917.816.6428 (Mobile) 212.521.5450 (Fax) gshatan at reedsmith.com www.reedsmith.com From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:34 AM To: Shatan, Gregory S.; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft Thanks, Greg. I'm still not clear to why it would say 'For the avoidance of doubt, if the requirements above are not met, the motion shall not be considered "submitted"? Why can't it be considered submitted, but just not eligible to be considered for a vote at the meeting? The current practice is also that if a motion is submitted after the deadline it may get discussed, just not voted on during the meeting, but there is no need to resubmit it for the next meeting as it is already considered submitted and automatically carried over. Maybe I'm missing something? Best regards, Marika From: , "Gregory S." > Date: Thursday 17 April 2014 03:40 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft All: Following up on our last meeting, I attach a revised version of the amendment to the Operating Procedures dealing with "late" submission of a motion, with my revisions marked in "track changes." I look forward to your comments. Best regards, Greg Gregory S. Shatan Deputy Chair | Tech Transactions Group IP | Technology | Media ReedSmithLLP The business of relationships 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212.549.0275 | Phone 917.816.6428 | Mobile 212.521.5450 | Fax gshatan at reedsmith.com www.reedsmith.com * * * This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation. * * * To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr at egyptig.org Thu Apr 24 10:44:06 2014 From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 12:44:06 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yeah?, I think that would work nicely. Thanks Greg. Amr On Apr 24, 2014, at 2:50 AM, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote: > I think the solution to this problem is to revise the language quoted below and keep the waiver section as is. > > For example: > > ?1. Explanation: The Councilor submitting the motion must also submit an explanation for the resubmission of the motion. The explanation need not accompany the motion when it is resubmitted; however, the explanation must be submitted no later than the deadline for submitting the motion (i.e., no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day 10 calendar days before the Council meeting at which the motion is to be reconsidered, unless the requirements for late submission in Section 3.3.2 are also met). The explanation does not need to meet any requirements other than being submitted in a timely manner.? > > Thoughts? > > Greg > > From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org] > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 4:53 PM > To: Shatan, Gregory S. > Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft > > Hi Greg and all, > > I know I?ve brought this up repetitively and I hate being a nag, but there?s still an inconvenient loophole in this text regarding resubmission of motions. On its meeting of March 26th, 2014, the GNSO Council approved the SCI recommendation to amend the GNSO Operating Procedures by adding sections 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 detailing the guidelines of motions being resubmitted. Section 4.3.3, claus number 1 reads as follows: > > ?1. Explanation: The Councilor submitting the motion must also submit an explanation for the resubmission of the motion. The explanation need not accompany the motion when it is resubmitted; however, the explanation must be submitted no later than the deadline for submitting the motion (i.e., no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day 10 calendar days before the Council meeting at which the motion is to be reconsidered). The explanation does not need to meet any requirements other than being submitted in a timely manner.? > > If the SCI determines that it would like the 10-day rule waiver to also apply to motions being resubmitted (and not exclusively to motions being submitted for the first time) in its recommendation to the Council, then there needs to be clarifying text to that effect. If the SCI does not recommend that the waiver should apply to resubmitted motions, then no further action is necessary. If the former is true, and not the latter, the the way I read it, the required clarification should either be added as a fourth bullet to 3.3.2 referencing 4.3.3, or perhaps an added numbered item to 4.3.4 (Limitations and Exceptions to Resubmission of a Motion) referring to the waiver rule in 3.3.2. Without these changes, I can?t see how the text of the operating procedures will support the waiver rule being applied to resubmitted motions in the event that the need arises. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Apr 22, 2014, at 9:53 PM, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote: > > > As discussed today on the SCI call, I agree with Marika?s comment below, and I have deleted the sentence in question. In the attached draft, I have accepted all the changes from the prior draft and then deleted that sentence. There were no other comments on the list or on the call. > > I would suggest that this draft should be considered final (subject only to ?accepting? the deletion of the sentence so that this is a clean document) for purposes of moving to the next step with this amendment to the Operating Procedures. > > Best regards, > > Greg > > Gregory S. Shatan > Partner > Reed Smith LLP > 599 Lexington Avenue > New York, NY 10022 > 212.549.0275 (Phone) > 917.816.6428 (Mobile) > 212.521.5450 (Fax) > gshatan at reedsmith.com > www.reedsmith.com > > > > From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:34 AM > To: Shatan, Gregory S.; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft > > Thanks, Greg. I'm still not clear to why it would say 'For the avoidance of doubt, if the requirements above are not met, the motion shall not be considered ?submitted?? Why can't it be considered submitted, but just not eligible to be considered for a vote at the meeting? The current practice is also that if a motion is submitted after the deadline it may get discussed, just not voted on during the meeting, but there is no need to resubmit it for the next meeting as it is already considered submitted and automatically carried over. Maybe I'm missing something? > > Best regards, > > Marika > > From: , "Gregory S." > Date: Thursday 17 April 2014 03:40 > To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft > > All: > > Following up on our last meeting, I attach a revised version of the amendment to the Operating Procedures dealing with ?late? submission of a motion, with my revisions marked in ?track changes.? > > I look forward to your comments. > > Best regards, > > Greg > > Gregory S. Shatan > Deputy Chair | Tech Transactions Group > IP | Technology | Media > ReedSmithLLP > The business of relationships > 599 Lexington Avenue > New York, NY 10022 > 212.549.0275 | Phone > 917.816.6428 | Mobile > 212.521.5450 | Fax > gshatan at reedsmith.com > www.reedsmith.com > > > * * * > This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation. > * * * > To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. > Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Thu Apr 24 22:13:02 2014 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 18:13:02 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <054301cf600a$5f1d02f0$1d5708d0$@rnapartners.com> Thanks Greg and Amr. This looks like a good solution to me as well. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Shatan, Gregory S. Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 20:51 To: 'Amr Elsadr' Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft I think the solution to this problem is to revise the language quoted below and keep the waiver section as is. For example: "1. Explanation: The Councilor submitting the motion must also submit an explanation for the resubmission of the motion. The explanation need not accompany the motion when it is resubmitted; however, the explanation must be submitted no later than the deadline for submitting the motion (i.e., no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day 10 calendar days before the Council meeting at which the motion is to be reconsidered, unless the requirements for late submission in Section 3.3.2 are also met). The explanation does not need to meet any requirements other than being submitted in a timely manner." Thoughts? Greg From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 4:53 PM To: Shatan, Gregory S. Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft Hi Greg and all, I know I've brought this up repetitively and I hate being a nag, but there's still an inconvenient loophole in this text regarding resubmission of motions. On its meeting of March 26th, 2014, the GNSO Council approved the SCI recommendation to amend the GNSO Operating Procedures by adding sections 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 detailing the guidelines of motions being resubmitted. Section 4.3.3, claus number 1 reads as follows: "1. Explanation: The Councilor submitting the motion must also submit an explanation for the resubmission of the motion. The explanation need not accompany the motion when it is resubmitted; however, the explanation must be submitted no later than the deadline for submitting the motion (i.e., no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day 10 calendar days before the Council meeting at which the motion is to be reconsidered). The explanation does not need to meet any requirements other than being submitted in a timely manner." If the SCI determines that it would like the 10-day rule waiver to also apply to motions being resubmitted (and not exclusively to motions being submitted for the first time) in its recommendation to the Council, then there needs to be clarifying text to that effect. If the SCI does not recommend that the waiver should apply to resubmitted motions, then no further action is necessary. If the former is true, and not the latter, the the way I read it, the required clarification should either be added as a fourth bullet to 3.3.2 referencing 4.3.3, or perhaps an added numbered item to 4.3.4 (Limitations and Exceptions to Resubmission of a Motion) referring to the waiver rule in 3.3.2. Without these changes, I can't see how the text of the operating procedures will support the waiver rule being applied to resubmitted motions in the event that the need arises. Thanks. Amr On Apr 22, 2014, at 9:53 PM, Shatan, Gregory S. > wrote: As discussed today on the SCI call, I agree with Marika's comment below, and I have deleted the sentence in question. In the attached draft, I have accepted all the changes from the prior draft and then deleted that sentence. There were no other comments on the list or on the call. I would suggest that this draft should be considered final (subject only to "accepting" the deletion of the sentence so that this is a clean document) for purposes of moving to the next step with this amendment to the Operating Procedures. Best regards, Greg Gregory S. Shatan Partner Reed Smith LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212.549.0275 (Phone) 917.816.6428 (Mobile) 212.521.5450 (Fax) gshatan at reedsmith.com www.reedsmith.com From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:34 AM To: Shatan, Gregory S.; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft Thanks, Greg. I'm still not clear to why it would say 'For the avoidance of doubt, if the requirements above are not met, the motion shall not be considered "submitted"? Why can't it be considered submitted, but just not eligible to be considered for a vote at the meeting? The current practice is also that if a motion is submitted after the deadline it may get discussed, just not voted on during the meeting, but there is no need to resubmit it for the next meeting as it is already considered submitted and automatically carried over. Maybe I'm missing something? Best regards, Marika From: , "Gregory S." < GShatan at reedsmith.com> Date: Thursday 17 April 2014 03:40 To: " gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" < gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft All: Following up on our last meeting, I attach a revised version of the amendment to the Operating Procedures dealing with "late" submission of a motion, with my revisions marked in "track changes." I look forward to your comments. Best regards, Greg Gregory S. Shatan Deputy Chair | Tech Transactions Group IP | Technology | Media ReedSmithLLP The business of relationships 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212.549.0275 | Phone 917.816.6428 | Mobile 212.521.5450 | Fax gshatan at reedsmith.com www.reedsmith.com * * * This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation. * * * To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mary.wong at icann.org Wed Apr 30 18:56:12 2014 From: mary.wong at icann.org (Mary Wong) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 11:56:12 -0700 Subject: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Please find attached the latest version of the proposed language relating to Waivers/Exceptions for motions in the GNSO Operating Procedures. As noted in last week?s call, the Consensus Call for this issue will be conducted via this email list. Note, however, that we are suggesting a slight change to the language circulated by Greg and discussed in the email thread below. In reviewing the proposed language prior to circulation for a Consensus Call, we noted that the suggested Explanation in Greg?s latest email (below) would entail a further change to the revised Resubmission of a Motion language in the GNSO Operating Procedures, which initial revisions were approved by the GNSO Council (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201403). As any further changes will have to be published for public comment, an alternative solution might be to add a sentence to the proposed Waivers/Exception language to address the concern voiced by Amr in an earlier email. Please indicate whether you, on behalf of your respective stakeholder groups and/or constituencies, support or do not support the attached proposed language. If in light of this email note you wish to discuss the issue further prior to concluding the Consensus Call, please indicate this as well. Thank you all! A second email relating to a Consensus Call for the separate issue of language relating to Working Group Consensus Levels will follow shortly. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong at icann.org * One World. One Internet. * From: Ron Andruff Date: Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 6:13 PM To: "'Shatan, Gregory S.'" , 'Amr Elsadr' Cc: Marika Konings , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft > Thanks Greg and Amr. This looks like a good solution to me as well. > > Kind regards, > > RA > > > Ron Andruff > RNA Partners > www.rnapartners.com > > > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Shatan, Gregory S. > Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 20:51 > To: 'Amr Elsadr' > Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating > Procedures: Revised Draft > > I think the solution to this problem is to revise the language quoted below > and keep the waiver section as is. > > For example: > > ?1. Explanation: The Councilor submitting the motion must also submit an > explanation for the resubmission of the motion. The explanation need not > accompany the motion when it is resubmitted; however, the explanation must be > submitted no later than the deadline for submitting the motion (i.e., no later > than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day 10 calendar days before > the Council meeting at which the motion is to be reconsidered, unless the > requirements for late submission in Section 3.3.2 are also met). The > explanation does not need to meet any requirements other than being submitted > in a timely manner.? > > Thoughts? > > Greg > > > From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org] > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 4:53 PM > To: Shatan, Gregory S. > Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating > Procedures: Revised Draft > > > Hi Greg and all, > > > > I know I?ve brought this up repetitively and I hate being a nag, but there?s > still an inconvenient loophole in this text regarding resubmission of motions. > On its meeting of March 26th, 2014, the GNSO Council approved the SCI > recommendation to amend the GNSO Operating Procedures by adding sections 4.3.3 > and 4.3.4 detailing the guidelines of motions being resubmitted. Section > 4.3.3, claus number 1 reads as follows: > > >> >> ?1. Explanation: The Councilor submitting the motion must also submit an >> explanation for the resubmission of the motion. The explanation need not >> accompany the motion when it is resubmitted; however, the explanation must be >> submitted no later than the deadline for submitting the motion (i.e., no >> later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day 10 calendar days >> before the Council meeting at which the motion is to be reconsidered). The >> explanation does not need to meet any requirements other than being submitted >> in a timely manner.? > > > > If the SCI determines that it would like the 10-day rule waiver to also apply > to motions being resubmitted (and not exclusively to motions being submitted > for the first time) in its recommendation to the Council, then there needs to > be clarifying text to that effect. If the SCI does not recommend that the > waiver should apply to resubmitted motions, then no further action is > necessary. If the former is true, and not the latter, the the way I read it, > the required clarification should either be added as a fourth bullet to 3.3.2 > referencing 4.3.3, or perhaps an added numbered item to 4.3.4 (Limitations and > Exceptions to Resubmission of a Motion) referring to the waiver rule in 3.3.2. > Without these changes, I can?t see how the text of the operating procedures > will support the waiver rule being applied to resubmitted motions in the event > that the need arises. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Amr > > > On Apr 22, 2014, at 9:53 PM, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote: > > > As discussed today on the SCI call, I agree with Marika?s comment below, and I > have deleted the sentence in question. In the attached draft, I have accepted > all the changes from the prior draft and then deleted that sentence. There > were no other comments on the list or on the call. > > > > I would suggest that this draft should be considered final (subject only to > ?accepting? the deletion of the sentence so that this is a clean document) for > purposes of moving to the next step with this amendment to the Operating > Procedures. > > > Best regards, > > > > Greg > > > > Gregory S. Shatan > Partner > Reed Smith LLP > 599 Lexington Avenue > New York, NY 10022 > 212.549.0275 (Phone) > 917.816.6428 (Mobile) > 212.521.5450 (Fax) > gshatan at reedsmith.com > www.reedsmith.com > > > > > > > > From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:34 AM > To: Shatan, Gregory S.; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating > Procedures: Revised Draft > > > > Thanks, Greg. I'm still not clear to why it would say 'For the avoidance of > doubt, if the requirements above are not met, the motion shall not be > considered ?submitted?? Why can't it be considered submitted, but just not > eligible to be considered for a vote at the meeting? The current practice is > also that if a motion is submitted after the deadline it may get discussed, > just not voted on during the meeting, but there is no need to resubmit it for > the next meeting as it is already considered submitted and automatically > carried over. Maybe I'm missing something? > > > > Best regards, > > > > Marika > > > > From: , "Gregory S." > > Date: Thursday 17 April 2014 03:40 > To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > " > > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating > Procedures: Revised Draft > > > > All: > > > > Following up on our last meeting, I attach a revised version of the amendment > to the Operating Procedures dealing with ?late? submission of a motion, with > my revisions marked in ?track changes.? > > > > I look forward to your comments. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Greg > > > > Gregory S. Shatan > Deputy Chair | Tech Transactions Group > IP | Technology | Media > ReedSmithLLP > The business of relationships > 599 Lexington Avenue > New York, NY 10022 > 212.549.0275 | Phone > 917.816.6428 | Mobile > 212.521.5450 | Fax > gshatan at reedsmith.com > www.reedsmith.com > > > > > * * * > > This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may > well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on > notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then > delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any > purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your > cooperation. > * * * > > To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, > unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained > in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written > to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties > under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or > (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related > matters addressed herein. > Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed Language for Waiver of Motion Deadline - 30 April 2014.doc Type: application/applefile Size: 445 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed Language for Waiver of Motion Deadline - 30 April 2014.doc Type: application/msword Size: 28160 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5033 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mary.wong at icann.org Wed Apr 30 19:10:34 2014 From: mary.wong at icann.org (Mary Wong) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 12:10:34 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Consensus Call - GNSO Working Groups Consensus Levels document Message-ID: Dear all, Attached is the latest draft of the proposal for SCI submission to the GNSO Council relating to the language in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines concerning Consensus Levels for Working Groups. As discussed on the various SCI calls and related emails, the SCI will be proposing that the actual text currently in the Guidelines concerning the Consensus Levels remain unchanged for now; instead, the SCI will recommend that a footnote be added to explain that the Levels can and do include designations of ?consensus against?. In addition, the SCI will also recommend to the Council that the current Consensus Levels text be reviewed as soon as feasible. Please indicate if you, on behalf of your stakeholder groups/constituencies, support or do not support the current draft proposal and language. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong at icann.org * One World. One Internet. * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed Language for Consensus Levels - 30 April.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 22705 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5033 bytes Desc: not available URL: