AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI activity

[Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu]

Yes, thanks, Wolf-Ulrich, for marshaling us and summarizing the various
activities we should be undertaking. On the 3 specific items you
mention, here is my initial (brief) reaction/feedback:
 
- Consent agenda: I'd like to know more about what goes into the ICANN
Board's thinking behind items to include (or not); and if possible, what
generally (outside ICANN-land) that sort of thing means and how it's
done, e.g. at major non-profit orgs. Is there a way to find this out? I
hesitate to load it on to ICANN staff but perhaps if others think it
useful there could be a brief enquiry to Diane Schroeder as well as to
reps of bigger non-profits? I agree it should form part of the GNSO
rules once the process is finalized.
 
- Reminder letter: I support this idea as well.
 
- Survey: I support this idea; a question that occurs to me is what the
best timing would be, e.g. should we let a bit more time elapse before
doing it, or after another couple of WGs under the process have
completed their work?
 
Happy to meet F2F in Costa Rica if an appropriate time can be found. As
Ron says, it needn't be long or formal.
 
Cheers, and safe travels to all,
Mary

 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH
03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage:
http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on
the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> 


From: <KnobenW at telekom.de>
To:<randruff at rnapartners.com>, <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
Date: 2/23/2012 12:16 PM
Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI activity
Thanks Ron.
What do others think about an F2F meeting in CR? This seems to be
relatively difficult to manage since we're already close to the CR
meeting. The only timeslot I could see would be on Saturday morning
before 10:00 a.m. But this should be confirmed by Glen - in case more
people opt for this.
 

Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich 


Von: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] 
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. Februar 2012 16:40
An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI activity


Thanks for bringing some focus to the SCI, Wolf-Ulrich.  I support the
idea of sending out a reminder to let everyone know that the SCI exists
to support fine tuning of processes.  I also support a f-2-f meeting in
Costa Rica to discuss the other items you note below.
 
Kind regards,
 
RA
 

Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.
 
 


From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of
KnobenW at telekom.de
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 6:48 PM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI activity

 
Dear SCI members,
 
after a phase of silent months it's now the right moment to put some
items to the table which need input and recommendations from this
committee.
 
1.    Rules of procedure
(http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-16dec11-en.pdf)


The GNSO council had a successful first run trial re a consent agenda
which should be put in a formal process. One rugh suggestion for this is
as follows:
1. The Chair or meeting leader calls for any opposition to said item
being in the consent agenda. If any opposition is voiced, then that item
is dropped from the consent agenda (and can be re-introduced at any time
in the main agenda).
2. If no opposition is voiced to the item being on the consent agenda,
the Chair or meeting leader calls for any opposition to the item itself.
If any opposition is voiced, then no action is taken (and the item can
be re-introduced at any time in the main agenda).
3. If no opposition, the consent agenda item is deemed approved by
theGNSO Council.
Obviously we need to discuss this in more detail, e.g. the goal of a
consent agenda, which items could be included to a consent agenda and
which should definitely be excluded e.a. It seems to make sense to
include the text - once recommended - into chapter 3.0 of the rules
"GNSO Council Meetings".
2.    As discussed in Dakar, it might be worth sending out a reminder
to the GNSO Council and SG/C leaders regarding the mandate of the SCI
and the opportunity that exists to request review of GNSO Improvement
related items. To this end, thanks to Marika the attached draft letter
has been prepared for your consideration. Please feel free to comment.
3.    Furthermore, in order to obtain feedback from WGs/DT on their
experience with the GNSO Working Group Guidelines - as it is intended in
the SCI charter - , it might be useful to develop a short survey which
could facilitate data gathering and input. In order to kick off the
discussion here are some bullet points:
·  The objective of the survey would be to determine whether there are
any issues that were encountered by WG/Dts with the GNSO Working Group
Guidelines, and/or identify areas for improvement 
·  If deemed effective, such a survey could become a standard part of
the self-evaluation process of WGs and provide the SCI with regular
input on the status of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines 

 

Ideas for items to be included in the survey are welcome!

 

 

I appreciate very much your response and hope to see most of you in
Costa Rica.



Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120223/dd6c72e8/attachment.html>