Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft)

Fri May 2 13:43:23 UTC 2014

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 <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
Date:  Friday, May 2, 2014 6:11 AM
To:  Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
Cc:  "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc]
Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft)

YeahŠ, I think so. Thanks Mary. It works out fine in both cases anyway.

One more questionŠ, 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 <mary.wong at icann.org> 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 that¹s 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 Š ?
> 
> 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 <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
> Date: Thursday, May 1, 2014 at 4:58 AM
> To: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
> Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" <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: Wouldn¹t 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 <mary.wong at icann.org> 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 week¹s 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 Greg¹s 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 <http://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:
>>>>  
>>>> ³1. 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.²
>>>>  
>>>> 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 I¹ve brought this up repetitively and I hate being a nag, but
>>>> there¹s 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:
>>>>  
>>>>> ³1. 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.²
>>>>  
>>>> 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 can¹t 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. <GShatan at reedsmith.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> As discussed today on the SCI call, I agree with Marika¹s 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
>>>> ³accepting² 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 <mailto:gshatan at reedsmith.com>
>>>> www.reedsmith.com <http://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 ³submitted²? 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: <Shatan>, "Gregory S." <GShatan at reedsmith.com
>>>> <mailto:GShatan at reedsmith.com> >
>>>> Date: Thursday 17 April 2014 03:40
>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org> " <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org> >
>>>> Subject: [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 ³late² submission of a
>>>> motion, with my revisions marked in ³track changes.²
>>>>  
>>>> 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 <mailto:gshatan at reedsmith.com>
>>>> www.reedsmith.com <http://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
>>>> <Motion waiver draft language - 22 April 2014.DOC>
>>>>  
>>> <Proposed Language f#1D7F33E.doc>
>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20140502/4d4bc4e7/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5041 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20140502/4d4bc4e7/smime.p7s>