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

Mon Feb 27 10:03:41 UTC 2012

Dear All,

I'll also follow up internally to see if there is any further information available with regard to the procedures the Board uses for its consent agenda.

With regard to meeting in Costa Rica, usually there are also some rooms available which staff can sign up for on the spot. It should be noted that such rooms are available on a first come, first serve basis and no additional services are provided (recording, Adobe Connect, etc.). If there is a preferred time / day for an informal meeting of the SCI, I'm happy to check whether a room would be available. However, I would only be able to confirm this upon arrival in Costa Rica. Should we set up a doodle poll to confirm the best time / day for such an informal meeting, which would also include the time/date suggested by Wolf?

With best regards,

Marika

From: "KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>" <KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:54:43 -0800
To: "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu<mailto:Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu>" <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu<mailto:Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>>, "randruff at rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com>" <randruff at rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com>>
Subject: AW: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI activity

Mary,

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
Wolf-Ulrich

________________________________
Von: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu<mailto:Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> [mailto:Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. Februar 2012 19:34
An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>; randruff at rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com>; 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

Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu<mailto:mary.wong at law.unh.edu>
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>>>
From:   <KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>>
To:     <randruff at rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com>>, <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 6:48 PM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto: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/20120227/944a9c25/attachment.html>