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

Tue May 13 20:07:46 UTC 2014

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<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>

* One World. One Internet. *

From: Ron Andruff <randruff at rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com>>
Date: Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 6:13 PM
To: "'Shatan, Gregory S.'" <GShatan at reedsmith.com<mailto:GShatan at reedsmith.com>>, 'Amr Elsadr' <aelsadr at egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>
Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>, "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: 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> [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<mailto: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<mailto: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. <GShatan at reedsmith.com<mailto:GShatan at reedsmith.com>> 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<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<mailto: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: <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 "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<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>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20140513/2da86194/attachment.html>
-------------- 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: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20140513/2da86194/Waiverof10DayMotionDeadline.DOC>
-------------- 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: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20140513/2da86194/433ResubmissionofaMotion.DOCX>