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

KnobenW at KnobenW at
Fri Feb 24 20:54:43 UTC 2012


thanks for your thoughts.

to 1: I think there must be a history "on Board" where it comes from and how they deal with it. No problem to ask board members how it happened,

to 2: I'm still expecting more comments and shall follow-up then

to 3: we've to find a "quiet corner", and I'll try to manage this

Kind regards

Von: Mary.Wong at [mailto:Mary.Wong at]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. Februar 2012 19:34
An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at; randruff at; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
Betreff: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI activity

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 W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
Email: mary.wong at<mailto:mary.wong at>
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
From:   <KnobenW at>
To:     <randruff at>, <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at>
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

Von: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. Februar 2012 16:40
An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at
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,


Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.

From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at] On Behalf Of KnobenW at
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 6:48 PM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at
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 (
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: <>

More information about the Gnso-improvem-impl-sc mailing list