From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Thu May 1 00:18:22 2014 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 00:18:22 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Consensus Call - GNSO Working Groups Consensus Levels document In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9A251137A@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Thanks Mary. This was sent to the constituency for comment and I will respond on behalf of the IPC by Monday. Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01CF6498.30234C60] 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 [cid:image002.jpg at 01CF6498.30234C60] Lewis and Roca LLP is now Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP. From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 12:11 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Consensus Call - GNSO Working Groups Consensus Levels document 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. * ________________________________ 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2055 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Thu May 1 00:24:05 2014 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 00:24:05 +0000 Subject: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9A25113D7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Dear all, It is unclear to me how this new language affects Reports. In other words, if a Motion involves, for example, adoption of a Report, but that report was not submitted prior to 24 hours before the GNSO Council meeting, does the exception/waiver still apply even if the Report itself was not circulated until 24 hours prior to the meeting? I am asking because the waiver language does not deal with Reports but the section otherwise does deal with Reports. Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01CF6498.FC94A3C0] 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 [cid:image002.jpg at 01CF6498.FC94A3C0] Lewis and Roca LLP is now Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP. From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 11:56 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) 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 ________________________________ 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2055 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From aelsadr at egyptig.org Thu May 1 08:58:54 2014 From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 10:58:54 +0200 Subject: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Mary. One question: Wouldn?t the proposed changes here need to be published for public comment as well? There are still changes being recommended to the operating procedures, right? Does it make a difference which section the reference to resubmitted motions lands? Thanks again. Amr On Apr 30, 2014, at 8:56 PM, Mary Wong wrote: > 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: From mary.wong at icann.org Thu May 1 14:02:26 2014 From: mary.wong at icann.org (Mary Wong) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 07:02:26 -0700 Subject: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Amr, yes; any proposed changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures, including to the WG Guidelines, need to go out for public comment ? and that?s the rub with the interplay here between the Resubmission of a Motion language (published for public comment and approved) and the Waiver/Exception proposal (not yet published). It may be awkward to send the Resubmission language out AGAIN for public comment so the more streamlined course of action would be to address the overlap in the Waiver/Exception language now. After the Waiver/Exception language is approved by the SCI, it will then need to go out for public comment ? which we recommend be done together with any other proposed changes the SCI may wish to make, e.g. Voting by Email. I hope this helps clarify ? ? 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: Amr Elsadr Date: Thursday, May 1, 2014 at 4:58 AM To: Mary Wong Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) > Thanks Mary. One question: Wouldn?t the proposed changes here need to be > published for public comment as well? There are still changes being > recommended to the operating procedures, right? Does it make a difference > which section the reference to resubmitted motions lands? > > Thanks again. > > Amr > > On Apr 30, 2014, at 8:56 PM, Mary Wong wrote: > >> 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: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5033 bytes Desc: not available URL: From aelsadr at egyptig.org Fri May 2 10:11:03 2014 From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 12:11:03 +0200 Subject: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yeah?, I think so. Thanks Mary. It works out fine in both cases anyway. One more question?, and excuse my inexperience :); Does the ICANN board need to approve changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures after they are approved by the Council? Does that have anything to do with the resubmission language still being in red-line in the operating procedures document? Thanks again, Mary. Amr On May 1, 2014, at 4:02 PM, Mary Wong wrote: > Hi Amr, yes; any proposed changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures, including to the WG Guidelines, need to go out for public comment ? and that?s the rub with the interplay here between the Resubmission of a Motion language (published for public comment and approved) and the Waiver/Exception proposal (not yet published). It may be awkward to send the Resubmission language out AGAIN for public comment so the more streamlined course of action would be to address the overlap in the Waiver/Exception language now. After the Waiver/Exception language is approved by the SCI, it will then need to go out for public comment ? which we recommend be done together with any other proposed changes the SCI may wish to make, e.g. Voting by Email. > > I hope this helps clarify ? ? > > 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: Amr Elsadr > Date: Thursday, May 1, 2014 at 4:58 AM > To: Mary Wong > Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) > >> Thanks Mary. One question: Wouldn?t the proposed changes here need to be published for public comment as well? There are still changes being recommended to the operating procedures, right? Does it make a difference which section the reference to resubmitted motions lands? >> >> Thanks again. >> >> Amr >> >> On Apr 30, 2014, at 8:56 PM, Mary Wong wrote: >> >>> 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: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Fri May 2 13:43:23 2014 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 06:43:23 -0700 Subject: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Amr, The Board does not have to approve changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures. They do have to approve changes to the ICANN Bylaws, which may result in changes to the Operating Procedures, although that does not apply in this case. Thus, the changes the Council approved with respect to resubmission of motions are considered to be final. I have reviewed the current version of the procedures document at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-26mar14-en.pdf and the section 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 (page 11 and 12 of the document) on resubmission of a motion and cannot see any redlining. Do you have access to a version that shows redlines? If so, can you point me to it? There should only be one version of the document posted and it should be the final version. There was, however, when the Council was considering the changes a draft version that contained redlining. However, the final version is the one posted at the link listed above. Best regards, Julie From: Amr Elsadr Date: Friday, May 2, 2014 6:11 AM To: Mary Wong Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) Yeah?, I think so. Thanks Mary. It works out fine in both cases anyway. One more question?, and excuse my inexperience :); Does the ICANN board need to approve changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures after they are approved by the Council? Does that have anything to do with the resubmission language still being in red-line in the operating procedures document? Thanks again, Mary. Amr On May 1, 2014, at 4:02 PM, Mary Wong wrote: > Hi Amr, yes; any proposed changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures, including > to the WG Guidelines, need to go out for public comment ? and that?s the rub > with the interplay here between the Resubmission of a Motion language > (published for public comment and approved) and the Waiver/Exception proposal > (not yet published). It may be awkward to send the Resubmission language out > AGAIN for public comment so the more streamlined course of action would be to > address the overlap in the Waiver/Exception language now. After the > Waiver/Exception language is approved by the SCI, it will then need to go out > for public comment ? which we recommend be done together with any other > proposed changes the SCI may wish to make, e.g. Voting by Email. > > I hope this helps clarify ? ? > > 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: Amr Elsadr > Date: Thursday, May 1, 2014 at 4:58 AM > To: Mary Wong > Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions > to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) > >> Thanks Mary. One question: Wouldn?t the proposed changes here need to be >> published for public comment as well? There are still changes being >> recommended to the operating procedures, right? Does it make a difference >> which section the reference to resubmitted motions lands? >> >> Thanks again. >> >> Amr >> >> On Apr 30, 2014, at 8:56 PM, Mary Wong wrote: >> >>> 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: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From aelsadr at egyptig.org Fri May 2 14:11:45 2014 From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 16:11:45 +0200 Subject: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <30BDD042-BC98-4B48-A855-9DE265C02A65@egyptig.org> Thanks for the explanation and the link Julie. The version of the GNSO Operating Procedures I was looking at is an older one found on this page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/44157. Thanks again. Amr On May 2, 2014, at 3:43 PM, Julie Hedlund wrote: > Dear Amr, > > The Board does not have to approve changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures. They do have to approve changes to the ICANN Bylaws, which may result in changes to the Operating Procedures, although that does not apply in this case. Thus, the changes the Council approved with respect to resubmission of motions are considered to be final. I have reviewed the current version of the procedures document at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-26mar14-en.pdf and the section 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 (page 11 and 12 of the document) on resubmission of a motion and cannot see any redlining. Do you have access to a version that shows redlines? If so, can you point me to it? There should only be one version of the document posted and it should be the final version. There was, however, when the Council was considering the changes a draft version that contained redlining. However, the final version is the one posted at the link listed above. > > Best regards, > Julie > > From: Amr Elsadr > Date: Friday, May 2, 2014 6:11 AM > To: Mary Wong > Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) > > Yeah?, I think so. Thanks Mary. It works out fine in both cases anyway. > > One more question?, and excuse my inexperience :); Does the ICANN board need to approve changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures after they are approved by the Council? Does that have anything to do with the resubmission language still being in red-line in the operating procedures document? > > Thanks again, Mary. > > Amr > > On May 1, 2014, at 4:02 PM, Mary Wong wrote: > >> Hi Amr, yes; any proposed changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures, including to the WG Guidelines, need to go out for public comment ? and that?s the rub with the interplay here between the Resubmission of a Motion language (published for public comment and approved) and the Waiver/Exception proposal (not yet published). It may be awkward to send the Resubmission language out AGAIN for public comment so the more streamlined course of action would be to address the overlap in the Waiver/Exception language now. After the Waiver/Exception language is approved by the SCI, it will then need to go out for public comment ? which we recommend be done together with any other proposed changes the SCI may wish to make, e.g. Voting by Email. >> >> I hope this helps clarify ? ? >> >> 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: Amr Elsadr >> Date: Thursday, May 1, 2014 at 4:58 AM >> To: Mary Wong >> Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >> Subject: Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) >> >>> Thanks Mary. One question: Wouldn?t the proposed changes here need to be published for public comment as well? There are still changes being recommended to the operating procedures, right? Does it make a difference which section the reference to resubmitted motions lands? >>> >>> Thanks again. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>> On Apr 30, 2014, at 8:56 PM, Mary Wong wrote: >>> >>>> 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: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Fri May 2 14:24:21 2014 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 07:24:21 -0700 Subject: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) In-Reply-To: <30BDD042-BC98-4B48-A855-9DE265C02A65@egyptig.org> References: <30BDD042-BC98-4B48-A855-9DE265C02A65@egyptig.org> Message-ID: Amr, Thank so much for pointing me to the document. That appears to be the version (based on the date) that was posted for GNSO Council review when it was considering the changes, hence the redlining. Best regards, Julie From: Amr Elsadr Date: Friday, May 2, 2014 10:11 AM To: Julie Hedlund Cc: Mary Wong , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) Thanks for the explanation and the link Julie. The version of the GNSO Operating Procedures I was looking at is an older one found on this page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/44157. Thanks again. Amr On May 2, 2014, at 3:43 PM, Julie Hedlund wrote: > Dear Amr, > > The Board does not have to approve changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures. > They do have to approve changes to the ICANN Bylaws, which may result in > changes to the Operating Procedures, although that does not apply in this > case. Thus, the changes the Council approved with respect to resubmission of > motions are considered to be final. I have reviewed the current version of > the procedures document at: > http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-26mar14-en.pdf and the section > 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 (page 11 and 12 of the document) on resubmission of a motion > and cannot see any redlining. Do you have access to a version that shows > redlines? If so, can you point me to it? There should only be one version of > the document posted and it should be the final version. There was, however, > when the Council was considering the changes a draft version that contained > redlining. However, the final version is the one posted at the link listed > above. > > Best regards, > Julie > > From: Amr Elsadr > Date: Friday, May 2, 2014 6:11 AM > To: Mary Wong > Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions > to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) > > Yeah?, I think so. Thanks Mary. It works out fine in both cases anyway. > > One more question?, and excuse my inexperience :); Does the ICANN board need > to approve changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures after they are approved by > the Council? Does that have anything to do with the resubmission language > still being in red-line in the operating procedures document? > > Thanks again, Mary. > > Amr > > On May 1, 2014, at 4:02 PM, Mary Wong wrote: > >> Hi Amr, yes; any proposed changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures, including >> to the WG Guidelines, need to go out for public comment ? and that?s the rub >> with the interplay here between the Resubmission of a Motion language >> (published for public comment and approved) and the Waiver/Exception proposal >> (not yet published). It may be awkward to send the Resubmission language out >> AGAIN for public comment so the more streamlined course of action would be to >> address the overlap in the Waiver/Exception language now. After the >> Waiver/Exception language is approved by the SCI, it will then need to go out >> for public comment ? which we recommend be done together with any other >> proposed changes the SCI may wish to make, e.g. Voting by Email. >> >> I hope this helps clarify ? ? >> >> 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: Amr Elsadr >> Date: Thursday, May 1, 2014 at 4:58 AM >> To: Mary Wong >> Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >> Subject: Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions >> to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) >> >>> Thanks Mary. One question: Wouldn?t the proposed changes here need to be >>> published for public comment as well? There are still changes being >>> recommended to the operating procedures, right? Does it make a difference >>> which section the reference to resubmitted motions lands? >>> >>> Thanks again. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>> On Apr 30, 2014, at 8:56 PM, Mary Wong wrote: >>> >>>> 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: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From GShatan at reedsmith.com Fri May 2 14:27:43 2014 From: GShatan at reedsmith.com (Shatan, Gregory S.) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 14:27:43 +0000 Subject: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) In-Reply-To: <30BDD042-BC98-4B48-A855-9DE265C02A65@egyptig.org> References: <30BDD042-BC98-4B48-A855-9DE265C02A65@egyptig.org> Message-ID: I could not open the later version, either using Julie's link or directly from the page http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures (accessed from the Council Activities dropdown menu at http://gnso.icann.org/en/). I get an "unknown file type" error. From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 10:12 AM To: Julie Hedlund Cc: Mary Wong; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) Thanks for the explanation and the link Julie. The version of the GNSO Operating Procedures I was looking at is an older one found on this page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/44157. Thanks again. Amr On May 2, 2014, at 3:43 PM, Julie Hedlund > wrote: Dear Amr, The Board does not have to approve changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures. They do have to approve changes to the ICANN Bylaws, which may result in changes to the Operating Procedures, although that does not apply in this case. Thus, the changes the Council approved with respect to resubmission of motions are considered to be final. I have reviewed the current version of the procedures document at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-26mar14-en.pdf and the section 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 (page 11 and 12 of the document) on resubmission of a motion and cannot see any redlining. Do you have access to a version that shows redlines? If so, can you point me to it? There should only be one version of the document posted and it should be the final version. There was, however, when the Council was considering the changes a draft version that contained redlining. However, the final version is the one posted at the link listed above. Best regards, Julie From: Amr Elsadr > Date: Friday, May 2, 2014 6:11 AM To: Mary Wong > Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) Yeah..., I think so. Thanks Mary. It works out fine in both cases anyway. One more question..., and excuse my inexperience :); Does the ICANN board need to approve changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures after they are approved by the Council? Does that have anything to do with the resubmission language still being in red-line in the operating procedures document? Thanks again, Mary. Amr On May 1, 2014, at 4:02 PM, Mary Wong > wrote: Hi Amr, yes; any proposed changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures, including to the WG Guidelines, need to go out for public comment - and that's the rub with the interplay here between the Resubmission of a Motion language (published for public comment and approved) and the Waiver/Exception proposal (not yet published). It may be awkward to send the Resubmission language out AGAIN for public comment so the more streamlined course of action would be to address the overlap in the Waiver/Exception language now. After the Waiver/Exception language is approved by the SCI, it will then need to go out for public comment - which we recommend be done together with any other proposed changes the SCI may wish to make, e.g. Voting by Email. I hope this helps clarify ... ? 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: Amr Elsadr > Date: Thursday, May 1, 2014 at 4:58 AM To: Mary Wong > Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) Thanks Mary. One question: Wouldn't the proposed changes here need to be published for public comment as well? There are still changes being recommended to the operating procedures, right? Does it make a difference which section the reference to resubmitted motions lands? Thanks again. Amr On Apr 30, 2014, at 8:56 PM, Mary Wong > wrote: 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: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Fri May 2 14:40:19 2014 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 07:40:19 -0700 Subject: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) In-Reply-To: References: <30BDD042-BC98-4B48-A855-9DE265C02A65@egyptig.org> Message-ID: Greg, You should get an option to either save the file or to choose an application, in which case choose Adobe Acrobat and click "open." If you don't get that option or it doesn't work for you, please let me know. Thanks! Julie From: , "Gregory S." Date: Friday, May 2, 2014 10:27 AM To: 'Amr Elsadr' , Julie Hedlund Cc: Mary Wong , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: RE: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) I could not open the later version, either using Julie?s link or directly from the page http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures (accessed from the Council Activities dropdown menu at http://gnso.icann.org/en/). I get an ?unknown file type? error. From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 10:12 AM To: Julie Hedlund Cc: Mary Wong; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) Thanks for the explanation and the link Julie. The version of the GNSO Operating Procedures I was looking at is an older one found on this page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/44157. Thanks again. Amr On May 2, 2014, at 3:43 PM, Julie Hedlund wrote: Dear Amr, The Board does not have to approve changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures. They do have to approve changes to the ICANN Bylaws, which may result in changes to the Operating Procedures, although that does not apply in this case. Thus, the changes the Council approved with respect to resubmission of motions are considered to be final. I have reviewed the current version of the procedures document at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-26mar14-en.pdf and the section 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 (page 11 and 12 of the document) on resubmission of a motion and cannot see any redlining. Do you have access to a version that shows redlines? If so, can you point me to it? There should only be one version of the document posted and it should be the final version. There was, however, when the Council was considering the changes a draft version that contained redlining. However, the final version is the one posted at the link listed above. Best regards, Julie From: Amr Elsadr Date: Friday, May 2, 2014 6:11 AM To: Mary Wong Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) Yeah?, I think so. Thanks Mary. It works out fine in both cases anyway. One more question?, and excuse my inexperience :); Does the ICANN board need to approve changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures after they are approved by the Council? Does that have anything to do with the resubmission language still being in red-line in the operating procedures document? Thanks again, Mary. Amr On May 1, 2014, at 4:02 PM, Mary Wong wrote: Hi Amr, yes; any proposed changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures, including to the WG Guidelines, need to go out for public comment ? and that?s the rub with the interplay here between the Resubmission of a Motion language (published for public comment and approved) and the Waiver/Exception proposal (not yet published). It may be awkward to send the Resubmission language out AGAIN for public comment so the more streamlined course of action would be to address the overlap in the Waiver/Exception language now. After the Waiver/Exception language is approved by the SCI, it will then need to go out for public comment ? which we recommend be done together with any other proposed changes the SCI may wish to make, e.g. Voting by Email. I hope this helps clarify ? ? 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: Amr Elsadr Date: Thursday, May 1, 2014 at 4:58 AM To: Mary Wong Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) > > Thanks Mary. One question: Wouldn?t the proposed changes here need to be > published for public comment as well? There are still changes being > recommended to the operating procedures, right? Does it make a difference > which section the reference to resubmitted motions lands? > > > > Thanks again. > > > > Amr > > > On Apr 30, 2014, at 8:56 PM, Mary Wong wrote: > > > 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: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Tue May 6 22:39:22 2014 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 22:39:22 +0000 Subject: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9A2520A39@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Ron, Mary, et al, Unlike the WG Consensus Guidelines proposal, I do not believe this waiver issue is ripe for Consensus Call. There seem to be some questions ?swirling? that require clarification ? including my question about the time of submission of ?reports? and the issue of public comment. It seems the next call may be scheduled in the middle of INTA in Hong Kong. Greg and I will need to check this. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01CF6941.5A2E53D0] 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 [cid:image002.jpg at 01CF6941.5A2E53D0] Lewis and Roca LLP is now Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP. From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 11:56 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) 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 ________________________________ 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2055 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Tue May 6 22:42:16 2014 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 22:42:16 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Consensus Call - GNSO Working Groups Consensus Levels document In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9A2520C79@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Ron, Mary, et al ? On behalf of IPC, we support. We also note that it is within the purview of SCI to undertake the longer term study of WG Consensus levels and perhaps this should be mentioned when reporting to Council. Many thanks to Greg for all his hard work on this. Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01CF6941.C20A0120] 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 [cid:image002.jpg at 01CF6941.C20A0120] Lewis and Roca LLP is now Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP. From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 12:11 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Consensus Call - GNSO Working Groups Consensus Levels document 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. * ________________________________ 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2055 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Tue May 6 22:55:54 2014 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 22:55:54 +0000 Subject: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9A2520A39@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9A2520A39@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9A2520CD6@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Dear all, My legal assistant advises the SCI call next week would be 3 am May 14 in Hong Kong so unfortunately I cannot participate. I do not know whether Greg is also attending INTA. Thomas, Avri, and I will be doing a call on e?voting tomorrow and perhaps one of them or Mary can report as to progress on that issue. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01CF6943.A8EF3CD0] 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 [cid:image002.jpg at 01CF6943.A8EF3CD0] Lewis and Roca LLP is now Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP. From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 3:39 PM To: 'Mary Wong'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) Ron, Mary, et al, Unlike the WG Consensus Guidelines proposal, I do not believe this waiver issue is ripe for Consensus Call. There seem to be some questions ?swirling? that require clarification ? including my question about the time of submission of ?reports? and the issue of public comment. It seems the next call may be scheduled in the middle of INTA in Hong Kong. Greg and I will need to check this. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01CF6943.A8EF3CD0] 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 [cid:image002.jpg at 01CF6943.A8EF3CD0] Lewis and Roca LLP is now Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP. From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 11:56 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) 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 ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2055 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From aelsadr at egyptig.org Wed May 7 15:01:08 2014 From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 17:01:08 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Consensus Call - GNSO Working Groups Consensus Levels document In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9A2520C79@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9A2520C79@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Hi, I also support the addition of the footnote on behalf of NCUC. Thanks. Amr On May 7, 2014, at 12:42 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > Ron, Mary, et al ? On behalf of IPC, we support. We also note that it is within the purview of SCI to undertake the longer term study of WG Consensus levels and perhaps this should be mentioned when reporting to Council. > > Many thanks to Greg for all his hard work on this. > 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 > > > Lewis and Roca LLP is now Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP. > > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong > Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 12:11 PM > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Consensus Call - GNSO Working Groups Consensus Levels document > > 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. * > > > 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr at egyptig.org Wed May 7 16:14:53 2014 From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 18:14:53 +0200 Subject: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9A2520A39@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9A2520A39@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <3E0FA19E-B584-4735-AC71-278A19DE13C2@egyptig.org> Hi, I was ready to vote in favour of this recommendation. Anne, could you please clarify the problems you foresee with the time of submission of ?reports? and public comments? I?m afraid I may have missed something important. Thanks. Amr On May 7, 2014, at 12:39 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > Ron, Mary, et al, > > Unlike the WG Consensus Guidelines proposal, I do not believe this waiver issue is ripe for Consensus Call. There seem to be some questions ?swirling? that require clarification ? including my question about the time of submission of ?reports? and the issue of public comment. It seems the next call may be scheduled in the middle of INTA in Hong Kong. Greg and I will need to check this. > 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 > > > Lewis and Roca LLP is now Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP. > > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong > Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 11:56 AM > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) > > 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 > > > > > 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Wed May 7 18:56:37 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 14:56:37 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Consensus Call - GNSO Working Groups Consensus Levels document In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9A2520C79@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9A2520C79@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <536A81E5.1040903@acm.org> On 06-May-14 18:42, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > Ron, Mary, et al ? On behalf of IPC, we support. We also note that it > is within the purview of SCI to undertake the longer term study of WG > Consensus levels and perhaps this should be mentioned when reporting to > Council. With all of the GNSO Review work about to start, I would not be too quick to jump into this particular activity. As a council member my inclination would be to defer this subject to the GNSO review. But as a SCI member, I have no objection to the request being made, it is just one I am not inclined toward. I am especially uncomfortable with the topic for the SCI as it is all tied up in the PDP by-laws and the nature of the house structure. avri From mary.wong at icann.org Mon May 12 17:37:58 2014 From: mary.wong at icann.org (Mary Wong) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 10:37:58 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Agenda for meeting on Tuesday 13 May Message-ID: Dear all, The agenda for the next SCI meeting on Tuesday 13 May is as follows: 1. Roll Call/Updates to SOI 2. Waiver/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: confirm Consensus Call (draft language circulated previously) 3. Remote/Electronic Voting: discuss draft language (draft language attached) 4. Next Steps/Next Meeting (Finalization of the Consensus Call for the previously-circulated draft GNSO Working Group consensus levels language will be done on-list and thus will not be an agenda item for this meeting.) If you or your SG/C alternate cannot participate in this meeting, please inform the Secretariat or me if you haven?t already done so. Thank you! 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: For SCI Discussion - Remote or Electronic Voting Language 12 May.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 23066 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 GShatan at reedsmith.com Tue May 13 20:07:46 2014 From: GShatan at reedsmith.com (Shatan, Gregory S.) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 20:07:46 +0000 Subject: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: All: Based on today's call and discussion on the email list, I am circulating the latest version of the Proposed Language for Waiver/Exceptions to the 10-day Motion Deadline. The Proposed Language is in italics in the attached documents. New language responding to comments by Anne Aikman-Scalese on the list has been added (in track changes). Also, in this version, I have removed language recently suggested to clarify that "resubmitted motions" are also eligible for the waiver. This language had been suggested due to a parenthetical clause in Section 4.3.3, which made it seem as if resubmitted motions would not be eligible for the waiver. Instead, I have proposed that the clause in 4.3.3. be removed. A revised version of Section 4.3.3 is also attached. It was the sense of those on the call that we should get to the root of the ambiguity, even though it meant that the new language in 4.3.3. would also need to be part of the public comment process. I look forward to any thoughts and comments you may have. Best regards, Greg Shatan Gregory S. Shatan Partner 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 From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 2:56 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) 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: Waiver of 10 Day Motion Deadline.DOC Type: application/msword Size: 17920 bytes Desc: Waiver of 10 Day Motion Deadline.DOC URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 4 3 3 Resubmission of a Motion.DOCX Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 17411 bytes Desc: 4 3 3 Resubmission of a Motion.DOCX URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Tue May 13 20:18:16 2014 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 16:18:16 -0400 Subject: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005201cf6ee8$7bac4830$7304d890$@rnapartners.com> Thank you for the rapid turnaround on this, Greg. It would be very helpful is Committee members would bring their comments to this draft to the list prior to our next meeting at month end. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff ONR Consulting, Inc. www.ICANNSherpa.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: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 16:08 To: 'Mary Wong'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) All: Based on today's call and discussion on the email list, I am circulating the latest version of the Proposed Language for Waiver/Exceptions to the 10-day Motion Deadline. The Proposed Language is in italics in the attached documents. New language responding to comments by Anne Aikman-Scalese on the list has been added (in track changes). Also, in this version, I have removed language recently suggested to clarify that "resubmitted motions" are also eligible for the waiver. This language had been suggested due to a parenthetical clause in Section 4.3.3, which made it seem as if resubmitted motions would not be eligible for the waiver. Instead, I have proposed that the clause in 4.3.3. be removed. A revised version of Section 4.3.3 is also attached. It was the sense of those on the call that we should get to the root of the ambiguity, even though it meant that the new language in 4.3.3. would also need to be part of the public comment process. I look forward to any thoughts and comments you may have. Best regards, Greg Shatan Gregory S. Shatan Partner 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 From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 2:56 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) 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 < randruff at rnapartners.com> Date: Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 6:13 PM To: "'Shatan, Gregory S.'" < GShatan at reedsmith.com>, 'Amr Elsadr' < aelsadr at egyptig.org> Cc: Marika Konings < marika.konings at icann.org>, " gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" < 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." < 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 julie.hedlund at icann.org Tue May 13 21:18:27 2014 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 14:18:27 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items: SCI Meeting 13 May Message-ID: Dear All, Please find below the action items from the call on 13 May. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/13+May+2014. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director SCI Meeting ? 13 May 1. Consensus Language in GNSO Working Group Guidelines (consensus call) -- On list Consensus Call. 2. Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures (consensus call; sub team: Greg) -- Greg will submit revised draft language for consideration (DONE). 3. Voting by Email: (sub team: Anne, Avri, Thomas) -- The subteam will submit draft language for consideration. -------------- 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 randruff at rnapartners.com Tue May 13 21:48:21 2014 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 17:48:21 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items: SCI Meeting 13 May In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <007501cf6ef5$10feca50$32fc5ef0$@rnapartners.com> Thank you, Julie. This is our call to action, all. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff ONR Consulting, Inc. www.ICANNSherpa.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 17:18 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items: SCI Meeting 13 May Dear All, Please find below the action items from the call on 13 May. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/13+May+2014. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director SCI Meeting - 13 May 1. Consensus Language in GNSO Working Group Guidelines (consensus call) -- On list Consensus Call. 2. Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures (consensus call; sub team: Greg) -- Greg will submit revised draft language for consideration (DONE). 3. Voting by Email: (sub team: Anne, Avri, Thomas) -- The subteam will submit draft language for consideration. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From terri.agnew at icann.org Tue May 13 22:10:35 2014 From: terri.agnew at icann.org (Terri Agnew) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 15:10:35 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] MP3 recording of the SCI meeting - 13 May 2014 Message-ID: Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 19:00 UTC. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20140513-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#may (transcripts and recording are found on the calendar page) Attendees: Ronald Andruff - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Primary - Chair Greg Shatan - IPC - Alternate Thomas Rickert - Nominating Committee Appointee - Alternate Wolf-Ulrich Knoben - ISPs and connectivity providers Constituency (ISPCP) - Primary Member Avri Doria - Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) - Primary Member Jennifer Standiford - Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) - Primary Member Cintra Sooknanan (Vice-Chair) - Not-for-Profit Organizations Constituency - NPOC Constituency - Primary Member Apologies: Anne Aikman Scalese - IPC - Primary Osvaldo Novoa - ISPs and connectivity providers Constituency (ISPCP) - Alternate ICANN Staff: Mary Wong Julie Hedlund Glen de Saint Gery 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 13 May 2014 Terri Agnew:Dear all, welcome to the SCI meeting on the 13th of May 2014 at 19:00 UTC Ron A:Hi all. Just dialing in now. Wolf-Ulrich:same to me Greg Shatan:I am in.... Julie Hedlund:@Ron: We are missing the Registrar and Registry SGs. Julie Hedlund:Note a correction to my last statement: Jennifer Standiford has joined the call from the Registrar SG. Ron A:Thanks Julie. Welcome Jennifer. Jennifer Standiford:hello Terri Agnew:Jennifer I have added you to attendance Jennifer Standiford:Thank you Terri Avri Doria:i do not undersran d why this is necessary. Avri Doria:as submitted motions are motions and thus subject to the rule as it stands. Terri Agnew:Cintra Sooknanan has joined Avri Doria:it is not necessary. a resubmitted morion is a motion Avri Doria:a motion is a motion Mary Wong:Perhaps a simpler clarifying sentence to say this Section can also apply to motions Resubmitted under 4.3.3? Avri Doria:so insteqd of fessing up to amistke, which i dont think it was, we put complicated lanauge in another section? Avri Doria:but once the submission rules are ammended, that ammendment applies to all submissions. Avri Doria:it wouldbe done in the context of waiver changes. Avri Doria:let me reread the offending sesubmission langauge. just need to find the full text url. Mary Wong:@Avri, here it is: "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." Mary Wong:Thanks, Greg. Avri Doria:i would prefer to see the pranthetical removed Cintra Sooknanan:how long does the asynchronous vote stay open? Cintra Sooknanan:before the vote/poll is closed Avri Doria:we called it voting outdide of a meeting. Avri Doria:Cintra, that would be a technical issue we did not predetemrined. Cintra Sooknanan:sorry that term just stuck :) Mary Wong:@Avri, it's in Section 4 of this draft. Cintra Sooknanan:important not to prejudice voters in different time zones Mary Wong:Suggest 72 hours (to match absentee voting)? Avri Doria:discussion at this point. Cintra Sooknanan:i like mary's suggestion for 72 hrs Ron A:I like matching an existing policy as well, re 72 hours. Mary Wong:Can also go a step further, to fully match the Absentee Voting timelines, allow shortening to 24 hours or expanding to 7 calendar days at Council leadership's discretion and/or in exceptional circumstances. Avri Doria:point 1 gives cases, as examples Cintra Sooknanan:question: would the topic under vote be allowed to continue to be discussed during the voting period? or will the discussion be brought to a close prior to the vote announcement? Avri Doria:don't see why people would ever need to stop talking. Cintra Sooknanan:technically could 'prejudice' the vote and also not the same rule as meeting vote Mary Wong:Sorry - my cursor took on a mind of its own for a second there! Avri Doria:well, we certainly talk in chats rooms while the vote is going on. i bet there is also talking on the AC during votes. Cintra Sooknanan:hrmm...fair point. Cintra Sooknanan:Avri is the vote contemplated by the subgroup to be a one off vote or are voters allowed to change their vote during the voting period? Mary Wong:I believe current absentee voting only allows a Councilor one shot at one vote so that will not change, I think. Cintra Sooknanan:ok thanks Mary Julie Hedlund:@Mary: It was sent to the list on 30 April. Julie Hedlund:Anne Aikman-Scalese said on the list that the IPC supports the language on 06 May. Mary Wong:@Ron, I absolutely didn't mean to come across as chastising you :) Julie Hedlund:On 07 May Amr Elsader said that the NCUC supports it. Ron A:No issues Mary. We all need to do our parts. Cintra Sooknanan:agree with Greg... there needs to be a holistic review Julie Hedlund:Apologies everyone -- I have to drop off to lead an SSAC call. Cintra Sooknanan:the issues were raised in our drafts, Cintra Sooknanan:we had to make a uturn based on objections on the call Thomas Rickert:Thanks Ron, Thanks all! Bye! Thomas Cintra Sooknanan:bye everyoen -------------- 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 mary.wong at icann.org Mon May 19 17:07:39 2014 From: mary.wong at icann.org (Mary Wong) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 10:07:39 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Consensus Call - GNSO Working Groups Consensus Levels document In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9A2520C79@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Dear all, This reminder is being sent on behalf of Ron and Cintra, SCI Chair and Vice-Chair - please indicate (if you have not already done so) whether your respective SG/C supports or does not support the proposed SCI recommendation relating to the WG Consensus Levels (see further below and the proposal sent out for the formal Consensus Call on 30 April). For the record, the SCI operates on a Full Consensus basis. As such, we will need responses one way or the other from: * the Registries Stakeholder Group * The Registrars Stakeholder Group * NomCom appointees * ISP constituency * NPOC constituency * Noncommercial Stakeholder Group The BC, IPC and NCUC have expressed support for the recommended proposal. Please accept my apologies if you have previously sent a response on behalf of your group that I missed. If possible, please provide your response by COB on Friday 23 May. Thank you! 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: Amr Elsadr Date: Wednesday, May 7, 2014 at 11:01 AM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" Cc: Mary Wong , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Consensus Call - GNSO Working Groups Consensus Levels document > Hi, > > I also support the addition of the footnote on behalf of NCUC. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On May 7, 2014, at 12:42 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > >> Ron, Mary, et al ? On behalf of IPC, we support. We also note that it is >> within the purview of SCI to undertake the longer term study of WG Consensus >> levels and perhaps this should be mentioned when reporting to Council. >> >> Many thanks to Greg for all his hard work on this. >> 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 >> >> >> >> Lewis and Roca LLP is now Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP. >> >> >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong >> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 12:11 PM >> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Consensus Call - GNSO Working Groups >> Consensus Levels document >> >> >> 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. * >> >> >> >> 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5033 bytes Desc: not available URL: From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Tue May 20 19:59:27 2014 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 19:59:27 +0000 Subject: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Consensus Call - GNSO Working Groups Consensus Levels document In-Reply-To: <536A81E5.1040903@acm.org> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9A2520C79@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <536A81E5.1040903@acm.org> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9A252F103@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Mary, Please see below regarding Consensus Call related to WG Consensus levels proposal from SCI. I responded for IPC May 6 and Avri weighed in May 7 I think. 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 Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 11:57 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Consensus Call - GNSO Working Groups Consensus Levels document On 06-May-14 18:42, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > Ron, Mary, et al ? On behalf of IPC, we support. We also note that it > is within the purview of SCI to undertake the longer term study of WG > Consensus levels and perhaps this should be mentioned when reporting > to Council. With all of the GNSO Review work about to start, I would not be too quick to jump into this particular activity. As a council member my inclination would be to defer this subject to the GNSO review. But as a SCI member, I have no objection to the request being made, it is just one I am not inclined toward. I am especially uncomfortable with the topic for the SCI as it is all tied up in the PDP by-laws and the nature of the house structure. avri ________________________________ 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mary.wong at icann.org Tue May 27 19:06:03 2014 From: mary.wong at icann.org (Mary Wong) Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 12:06:03 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] 1. FINAL REQUEST - Consensus Call for WG Consensus Levels 2. Finalizing Waiver/Exception language Message-ID: Dear all, Please note two outstanding items at this time that require your attention. The first is the Consensus Call, first issued on 30 April and with a reminder sent on 19 May, on the SCI's recommendation regarding Working Group Consensus Levels. We have yet to hear back from the following SG/Cs ? Registries SG; Registrars SG; and the ISPCP constituency. Once again, if you?ve responded on your group?s behalf and I missed it, please accept my apologies and do let me know right away. Please let me know also if you need me to resend the proposal to you. ** If no objections or proposed changes to the last draft circulated on the dates mentioned above are received by Friday 30 May 2014, it will be presumed to have been accepted by Full Consensus of the SCI ** Secondly, please refer to Greg?s email and attachment below for the second outstanding action item on the SCI?s list, on Waivers/Exceptions to the GNSO Operating Procedures. Please circulate any questions, comments or suggestions you or your groups may have on the proposed language for further discussion pending next week?s meeting and preparation for a Consensus Call on this particular item. Lastly, the sub group on Electronic/Remote Voting will continue its work on a draft proposal for submission to the full SCI for discussion soon. 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. * From: , "Gregory S." Date: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 at 4:07 PM To: Mary Wong , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: RE: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) > All: > > Based on today?s call and discussion on the email list, I am circulating the > latest version of the Proposed Language for Waiver/Exceptions to the 10-day > Motion Deadline. The Proposed Language is in italics in the attached > documents. New language responding to comments by Anne Aikman-Scalese on the > list has been added (in track changes). > > Also, in this version, I have removed language recently suggested to clarify > that ?resubmitted motions? are also eligible for the waiver. This language > had been suggested due to a parenthetical clause in Section 4.3.3, which made > it seem as if resubmitted motions would not be eligible for the waiver. > Instead, I have proposed that the clause in 4.3.3. be removed. A revised > version of Section 4.3.3 is also attached. It was the sense of those on the > call that we should get to the root of the ambiguity, even though it meant > that the new language in 4.3.3. would also need to be part of the public > comment process. > > I look forward to any thoughts and comments you may have. > > Best regards, > > Greg Shatan > > Gregory S. Shatan > Partner > 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 > > > > > > > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong > Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 2:56 PM > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to > GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft) > > > 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: Waiver of 10 Day Motion Deadline.DOC Type: application/msword Size: 17920 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 4 3 3 Resubmission of a Motion.DOCX Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 17411 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: