<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text --><style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head>
<body>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:11pt; color:black">
<span style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:11pt; color:black">Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP and IOC RC NGO PDP were requested by the ICANN Board. Anne<br>
<br>
Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)<br>
<br>
<span style="color:black">-----Original Message----- <br>
<b>From:</b> Ron Andruff [randruff@rnapartners.com]<br>
<b>Received:</b> Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Avri Doria' [avri@acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org]<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote<br>
<br>
</span></span></div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText"><br>
I support Avri's comments as well. The Board's role is to commit policy<br>
that has been developed through the bottom up process into rule by way of<br>
resolution. Although the history of the Board's actions to date might prove<br>
otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN environment we should expect the Board<br>
to conform to ICANN's basic principles.<br>
<br>
I support the footnote amendment as proposed.<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
<br>
RA<br>
<br>
Ronald N. Andruff<br>
RNA Partners, Inc.<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<br>
[<a href="mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org">mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria<br>
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 9:47 AM<br>
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<br>
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed<br>
Revised Footnote<br>
<br>
<br>
Hi,<br>
<br>
I think the question of what the Board would do if g-council ever suspended<br>
a PDP that they mandated is an open question. I expect they would either<br>
wait, question the postponement, or make one their preemptory decisions.<br>
Since the Board has never yet, to my knowledge, mandated a PDP - though they<br>
can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this point, and in any case<br>
think it is a separate issue from the suspension mechanism. All other PDPs<br>
are g-council decsions, even if the issues report is requested by one of the<br>
ACs.<br>
<br>
I am fine with the footnote. thanks.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 8 Dec 2012, at 18:26, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Anne and all,<br>
> <br>
> this touches the question whether the board may overrule a council<br>
decision on suspension because you're expressing an expectation that the<br>
council should follow a related board request. I think this could be the<br>
case depending on a council debate following the board request but there is<br>
no obligation to do so.<br>
> <br>
> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by Julie?<br>
> <br>
> Best regards <br>
> Wolf-Ulrich<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<br>
[<a href="mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org">mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org</a>] Im Auftrag von<br>
Aikman-Scalese, Anne<br>
> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2012 18:43<br>
> An: 'J. Scott Evans'; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<br>
> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a<br>
PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote<br>
> <br>
> This makes sense. Is it clear to everyone that if the ICANN Board says,<br>
"Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an answer - go<br>
back to the drawing board," then that is what will happen? <br>
> <br>
> Deadlock is deadly for ICANN. If GNSO can't work effectively and the<br>
Board has to act (pursuant to GAC Advice or otherwise), then Fadi's "oasis"<br>
announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure increases to<br>
take control away from ICANN. <br>
> <br>
> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up at the<br>
GNSO level.<br>
> <br>
> Anne<br>
> <br>
> <image001.gif>Anne E. Aikman-Scalese<br>
> Of Counsel<br>
> Lewis and Roca LLP . Suite 700<br>
> One South Church Avenue . Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611<br>
> Tel (520) 629-4428 . Fax (520) 879-4725<br>
> AAikman@LRLaw.com . <a href="http://www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman">www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman</a><br>
> <br>
> <br>
> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.<br>
> <br>
> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information<br>
> intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.<br>
> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the <br>
> agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are<br>
> hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or <br>
> copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication<br>
> was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the<br>
original message.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> From: J. Scott Evans [<a href="mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com">mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com</a>]
<br>
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM<br>
> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<br>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a<br>
PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote<br>
> <br>
> I can live with that and I don't think this require further public comment<br>
since it merely clarifies the suspension.<br>
> <br>
> jse<br>
> <br>
> j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc.<br>
- 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@yahoo.com<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org><br>
> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrlaw.com>;<br>
"gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> <br>
> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:40 AM<br>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a<br>
PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote<br>
> <br>
> Thanks Anne. Then, would you want "until further notice" to be deleted?<br>
If so, here's an amended text for all to review. <br>
> <br>
> Best regards,<br>
> Julie<br>
> <br>
> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary<br>
cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the<br>
GNSO Council. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not<br>
considered a suspension."<br>
> <br>
> From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@LRLaw.com><br>
> Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 4:32 PM<br>
> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>,<br>
Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org><br>
> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a<br>
PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote<br>
> <br>
> What is the relationship between "stated" and "until further notice"? If<br>
"stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would not apply.<br>
Anne<br>
> <br>
> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (<a href="http://www.nitrodesk.com">www.nitrodesk.com</a>)<br>
> <br>
> -----Original Message----- <br>
> From: Julie Hedlund [julie.hedlund@icann.org]<br>
> Received: Thursday, 06 Dec 2012, 2:15pm<br>
> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org]<br>
> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed<br>
Revised Footnote<br>
> <br>
> Dear SCI members,<br>
> <br>
> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a clarification to<br>
the footnote text for the PDP Manual, Section 15, on Suspending a PDP.<br>
Please review the revised following text with the change in bold all caps:<br>
> <br>
> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary<br>
cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the<br>
GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule<br>
of the PDP is not considered a suspension."<br>
> <br>
> For reference, I have included the entire section below so that the<br>
footnote may be viewed in context. <br>
> <br>
> It was suggested on the call that if this clarification is accepted by the<br>
SCI members it will not require a new public comment period.<br>
> <br>
> **Please send any comments by COB Monday, 10 December so that if the SCI<br>
decides to submit a motion it may do so by the deadline of Wednesday, 12<br>
December.**<br>
> <br>
> With best regards,<br>
> <br>
> Julie<br>
> <br>
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director<br>
> <br>
> 15. Termination of PDP prior to Final Report<br>
> <br>
> The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend[1] a PDP prior to the<br>
publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a motion that<br>
passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of termination orsuspension. The<br>
following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a premature<br>
termination or suspension of a PDP:<br>
> <br>
> 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to<br>
identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong support<br>
or a consensus of its members despite significant time and resources being<br>
dedicated to the PDP;<br>
> 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the initiation<br>
of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary; or<br>
warranting a suspension; or<br>
> 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for<br>
participation, the work of the PDP Team issignificantly impaired and unable<br>
to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack of volunteer<br>
participation. <br>
> <br>
> If there is no recommendation from the PDP Team for its termination, the<br>
Council is required to conduct a public comment forum first prior to<br>
conducting a vote on the termination of the PDP (as described above).<br>
> <br>
> [1] Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a temporary<br>
cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the<br>
GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of<br>
the PDP is not considered a suspension.<br>
> <br>
> For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to<br>
<a href="http://www.lewisandroca.com">www.lewisandroca.com</a>.<br>
> Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900<br>
> Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400<br>
> Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380<br>
> This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to<br>
which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended<br>
recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message<br>
to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,<br>
distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have<br>
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by<br>
replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.<br>
> In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you<br>
that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended<br>
or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the<br>
purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</span></font>
</body>
</html>