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

Tue May 13 20:18:16 UTC 2014

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.

 <http://www.ICANNSherpa.com> 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 <mailto:gshatan at reedsmith.com> 
www.reedsmith.com <http://www.reedsmith.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 Mary Wong
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 2:56 PM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org <mailto: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>
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:  <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org> mary.wong at icann.org

* One World. One Internet. *

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

 <http://www.rnapartners.com> www.rnapartners.com

From:  <mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
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;  <mailto: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

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> mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 4:53 PM
To: Shatan, Gregory S.
Cc: Marika Konings;  <mailto: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

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)
 <mailto:gshatan at reedsmith.com> gshatan at reedsmith.com
 <http://www.reedsmith.com/> www.reedsmith.com

From: Marika Konings [ <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>
mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] 
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:34 AM
To: Shatan, Gregory S.;  <mailto: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. 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." < <mailto:GShatan at reedsmith.com>
GShatan at reedsmith.com>
Date: Thursday 17 April 2014 03:40
To: " <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc 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>
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
 <mailto:gshatan at reedsmith.com> gshatan at reedsmith.com
 <http://www.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

<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/20140513/45f89cb5/attachment.html>