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

Fri May 2 12:37:10 CEST 2014

Hi all,

I’m forwarding the first of two projects currently being wrapped up by the GNSO’s Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI). I’ll be forwarding the second one in a separate email. Both projects involve changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures, so will be published for public comment after being approved by the full committee and before going to the GNSO Council for approval.

This project concerns a mechanism to make allowances for waivers/exceptions to the ten-day rule of motions being submitted to the GNSO Council. The intent here is to allow for a waiver of the ten-day rule in the event of a motion being submitted past the deadline, and having already been thoroughly discussed and considered by the GNSO Council members. As per the SCI recommendation, this waiver is only possible if there is unanimous approval for it on a case-by-case basis amongst Council members.

I am personally ready to vote in favour of this recommendation on behalf of the NCUC, but was wondering if anyone has any thoughts on it.

Thanks.

Amr

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
> Subject: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft)
> Date: April 30, 2014 at 8:56:12 PM GMT+2
> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
> 
> 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
> 
> * 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
>>  
>> 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:
>>  
>> “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
>> 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> 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
>> 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 “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>
>> Date: Thursday 17 April 2014 03:40
>> To: "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
>> gshatan at 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://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20140502/bd83d45a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Proposed Language f#1D7F33E.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 28160 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20140502/bd83d45a/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20140502/bd83d45a/attachment-0001.html>