<html>
<head>
</head>
<body style="font-style: normal; margin-top: 4px; font-variant: normal; margin-bottom: 1px; font-family: Lucida Grande; margin-left: 4px; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 12pt; margin-right: 4px">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 0">
<font face="Lucida Grande" size="3">Between Avri and Marika, I think they've covered and explained things superbly. I agree that what (and whether) the Board can/will do if the GNSO Council decides to suspend a Board-initiated PDP is a separate question from what we're considering - how to deal with that will be up to the Council. I think that the present wording, as amended after Anne's comment, works and I support it.</font> </p>
<br>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 0">
<font face="Lucida Grande" size="3">Cheers</font> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 0">
<font face="Lucida Grande" size="3">Mary</font><br><br><font face="Lucida Grande" STYLE="font-size: 12pt"><br>Mary W S Wong <BR>Professor of Law <BR>Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP <BR>Chair, Graduate IP Programs <BR>UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW <BR>Two White Street <BR>Concord, NH 03301 <BR>USA <BR>Email: mary.wong@law.unh.edu <BR>Phone: 1-603-513-5143 <BR>Webpage: <a href="http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php ">http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php </a><BR>Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: <a href="http://ssrn.com/author=437584">http://ssrn.com/author=437584</a> <BR><br><br></font>>>> </p>
<table border="0" bgcolor="#f3f3f3" style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0; margin-left: 15px; font-size: 1em; margin-right: 0">
<tr>
<td>
<div style="border-left: solid 1px #050505; padding-left: 7px">
<table bgcolor="#f3f3f3" style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-family: Lucida Grande; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 12pt">
<tr valign="top">
<td>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 0">
<b>From: </b> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 0">
Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> </p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top">
<td>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 0">
<b>To:</b> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 0">
<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> </p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top">
<td>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 0">
<b>Date: </b> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 0">
12/9/2012 6:28 AM </p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top">
<td>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 0">
<b>Subject: </b> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 0">
Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote </p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 0">
<br>
Thanks.  I missed the RAA request being a Board PDP and forgot about the purpose of WHOIS one.<br><br>avri<br><br><br><br>On 9 Dec 2012, at 15:05, Marika Konings wrote:<br><br>> To clarify, there are currently two Board requested PDPs, one on the RAA<br>> ('Resolved (2011.10.28.33), the Board also requests the creation of an<br>> Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process (PDP) as<br>> quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a PDP) and the<br>> recently requested Issue Report on the purpose of Whois ('hereby directs<br>> preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of collecting and<br>> maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions to improve accuracy<br>> and access to gTLD registration data, as part of a Board-initiated GNSO<br>> policy development process'). As pointed out by Avri, for PDPs initiated<br>> by the ICANN Board, there is no intermediate vote by the GNSO Council, the<br>> PDP automatically proceeds. However, the ICANN Bylaws foresee that in the<br>> case of a Board initiated PDP, 'the Board should provide a mechanism by<br>> which the GNSO<br>> Council can consult with the Board to provide information on the scope,<br>> timing, and priority of the request for an Issue Report'. In addition to<br>> this mechanism, the ICANN Board and GNSO Council meet at every ICANN<br>> meeting where there is another opportunity to discuss and/or express<br>> concerns with regard to Board requested PDPs. For example, in relation to<br>> the RAA PDP, as a result of dialogue between the ICANN Board and GNSO<br>> Council it was agreed to 'suspend' the PDP until the RAA negotiations were<br>> near completion so that it would be clear which topics would need to be<br>> included in the PDP.<br>><br>> With best regards,<br>><br>> Marika<br>><br>> On 09/12/12 08:12, "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote:<br>><br>>><br>>> Thanks Avri, very helpful for understanding.<br>>><br>>><br>>> Best regards<br>>> Wolf-Ulrich<br>>><br>>><br>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----<br>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<br>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria<br>>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 05:39<br>>> An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<br>>> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a<br>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote<br>>><br>>><br>>> Hi,<br>>><br>>> As I understand it, they have asked g-council for answers, but they have<br>>> not actually used the by-laws mechanism of requesting a PDP.  The<br>>> g-council has used the PDP as a method of deciding on answers.  These are<br>>> still g-council initiated PDPs.  Had the Board asked for the PDP, there<br>>> never would have been a vote in g-council to initiate the PDP.<br>>> Specifically:<br>>><br>>> "<br>>> March 212 20120314-1<br>>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick'<br>>> Whois<br>>><br>>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois at<br>>> its meeting on 22 September 2011<br>>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109);<br>>><br>>> ....<br>>> "<br>>><br>>> "<br>>> November 2012 20121017-2<br>>> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the<br>>> Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs.<br>>><br>>> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of<br>>> whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of<br>>> international organizations at the first and second levels in the New<br>>> gTLD Program.<br>>><br>>> ....<br>>> "<br>>><br>>> Under the by-laws, ANNEX A: GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS<br>>><br>>> "<br>>> Section 3. Requesting an Issue Report<br>>><br>>> Board Request. The Board may request an Issue Report by instructing the<br>>> GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined the PDP Manual. In<br>>> the event the Board makes a request for an Issue Report, the Board should<br>>> provide a mechanism by which the GNSO Council can consult with the Board<br>>> to provide information on the scope, timing, and priority of the request<br>>> for an Issue Report.<br>>><br>>> ....<br>>><br>>> Section 5. Initiation of the PDP<br>>><br>>> The Council may initiate the PDP as follows:<br>>><br>>> Board Request: If the Board requested an Issue Report, the Council,<br>>> within the timeframe set forth in thePDP Manual, shall initiate a PDP. No<br>>> vote is required for such action.<br>>> "<br>>><br>>> avri<br>>><br>>><br>>> On 9 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:<br>>><br>>>> Must be my misunderstanding... I thought both the current whois PDP and<br>>>> 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>>>> -----Original Message-----<br>>>> From: Ron Andruff [randruff@rnapartners.com]<br>>>> Received: Saturday, 08 Dec 2012, 3:06pm<br>>>> To: 'Avri Doria' [avri@acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<br>>>> [gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org]<br>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Suspending a<br>>>> PDP--Proposed Revised Footnote<br>>>><br>>>><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<br>>>> of<br>>>> resolution.  Although the history of the Board's actions to date might<br>>>> prove<br>>>> otherwise, in an ever-maturing ICANN environment we should expect the<br>>>> 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>>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] 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<br>>>> 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<br>>>> suspended<br>>>> a PDP that they mandated is an open question.  I expect they would<br>>>> 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<br>>>> they<br>>>> can - I do not think it is a critical issue at this point, and in any<br>>>> case<br>>>> think it is a separate issue from the suspension mechanism.  All other<br>>>> PDPs<br>>>> are g-council decsions, even if the issues report is requested by one<br>>>> 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><br>>>> 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<br>>>> there is<br>>>> no obligation to do so.<br>>>>><br>>>>> With this understanding, an you agree to the footnote provided by<br>>>> Julie?<br>>>>><br>>>>> Best regards<br>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich<br>>>>><br>>>>><br>>>>> Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<br>>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] 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<br>>>> says,<br>>>> "Sorry, GNSO, we don't want you to suspend because we need an answer -<br>>>> 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<br>>>> "oasis"<br>>>> announced in Dubai becomes more of a "quagmire" and pressure increases<br>>>> to<br>>>> take control away from ICANN.<br>>>>><br>>>>> I only raise this because it seems to me the question will come up at<br>>>> 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 . www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<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 [mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com]<br>>>>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:20 AM<br>>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; Aikman-Scalese, Anne;<br>>>> 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<br>>>> comment<br>>>> since it merely clarifies the suspension.<br>>>>><br>>>>> jse<br>>>>><br>>>>> j. scott evans -  head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo!<br>>>> 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<br>>>> 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<br>>>> temporary<br>>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of<br>>>> 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"<br>>>> <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"?<br>>>> If<br>>>> "stated" applies, then it seems that "until further notice" would not<br>>>> apply.<br>>>> Anne<br>>>>><br>>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)<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<br>>>> PDP--Proposed<br>>>> Revised Footnote<br>>>>><br>>>>> Dear SCI members,<br>>>>><br>>>>> As we discussed on today's call, J. Scott has proposed a<br>>>> 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<br>>>> caps:<br>>>>><br>>>>> "Suspension is a STATED time interval during which there is a<br>>>> temporary<br>>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of<br>>>> the<br>>>> GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or<br>>>> 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<br>>>> 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<br>>>> 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<br>>>> that<br>>>> passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of termination orsuspension.<br>>>> 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<br>>>> support<br>>>> or a consensus of its members despite significant time and resources<br>>>> being<br>>>> dedicated to the PDP;<br>>>>> 2.     Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the<br>>>> 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<br>>>> 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,<br>>>> 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<br>>>> temporary<br>>>> cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of<br>>>> the<br>>>> GNSO Council until furthernotice. A mere change in milestones or<br>>>> schedule of<br>>>> the PDP is not considered a suspension.<br>>>>><br>>>>> For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to<br>>>> www.lewisandroca.com.<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<br>>>> 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<br>>>> message<br>>>> to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any<br>>>> dissemination,<br>>>> distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you<br>>>> 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<br>>>> you<br>>>> that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not<br>>>> 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>>><br><br><br>
</p>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</body>
</html>