From Glen at icann.org  Fri Jun  1 22:19:43 2012
From: Glen at icann.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Glen_de_Saint_G=E9ry?=)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 15:19:43 -0700
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Adobe Connect Chat 31 May 2012
Message-ID: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184B11BCAC84@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>

Ron A: @Anne +1

avri: i am prettu sre threshhold changes would require Board approval

avri: .... rather sure ...

Marika Konings: Yes, I believe so to as all voting thresholds (that are not simple majority) are listed in the Bylaws

Mary Wong: @Avri, they would be Bylaw changes, right? e.g. to Annex A; and so would need Board approval after Council approval?

Marika Konings: It is actually not in Annex A but in the section on the GNSO

Marika Konings: Article X, section 3(9)

Mary Wong: Oh, right - sorry! Article X ... ?

avri: and that also means ammending.

Marika Konings: Which would also mean it would need to go through the different rounds of public comment

avri: can someone put the wiki address on the adobe

Marika Konings: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/Home

avri: thanks

Angie Graves: Thank you, Ron.  Agreed.

Ron A: Thank you, Angie.

Ron A: And Krista...

Alain Berranger, NPOC: Apologies for leaving call early...have another ICANN call in a few minutes... Ciao

Ron A: +1 Avri

Mary Wong: +2 Avri

avri: Marica: good point, thanks

avri: I mean Marika: ...

Ron A: Sounds like we do need to codify somethng here

avri: maybe so

avri: we might need to put conseny agenda on first next time. as a consent agenda item to accept the language.

Ron A: FYI Anne, this is based on JSE's draft

avri: I am going to take ity back to the SG.  if they suggest commentds i will bring them forward.

avri: i do not really accept a prohibition on forther editting.

Ron A: not prohibition avri, rather a reminder to the sci that we have discussed in detail on thus and such a date

Ron A: i may miss prague

Anne Aikman-Scalese: Prefer to participate remotely at meeting in Prague

Mary Wong: Anne, Ron - what's the time diff btwn where u are and Prague?

avri: i am at EuroDIG those 3 days and can't at all

Ron A: nyc for me; must be 6 hours

avri: we can do stuff on the list.

avri: Chair can do concensus calls on line, we have epxereince with them.

Ron A: Agree we should finish  any thing  we can and report back to GNSO in prague

avri: we agree Ron, but i don't think we ned a call.

Ron A: i'm easy eithre way A

avri: i can't make one in any case.

Mary Wong: Yeah I can't do a call from June 13-15

avri: i am not optimistic about completing deferral of motions in time. - we are not close to consensus.

Krista Papac: i cannot meet on the 15th

Mary Wong: Neither can I

Mary Wong: Bye everyone

Glen de Saint G?ry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
http://gnso.icann.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120601/62ace212/attachment.html>

From marika.konings at icann.org  Mon Jun  4 13:41:51 2012
From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 06:41:51 -0700
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Doodle poll to schedule next meeting
In-Reply-To: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184B11BCAB2D@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <CBF2877C.2B647%marika.konings@icann.org>

Dear All,

Please complete the following doodle poll in order to try and find a time / date for the next meeting of the SCI: http://www.doodle.com/mixfiriwhunudr5v.

With best regards,

Marika

From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org<mailto:Glen at icann.org>>
To: "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>>
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised Mp3 and attendance: Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation 31 May 2012



Dear All,

Please watch out for the doodle Marika will be sending out to schedule the  next meeting of the Standing Committee on GNSO  Improvements Implementation.

Please find the Mp3 recording from the SCI call on Thursday, 31 May 2012 at:
http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20120531-en.mp3



on page:

http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#may



Transcript and Mp3 recorded will be posted shortly on:

http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#may



Attendees

Ron Andruff - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Primary

Wolf-Ulrich Knoben ? ISPCP ? Primary ? Chair
Anne Aikman-Scalese ? IPC Alternate
Angie Graves - Commercial and Business Users Constituency ? Alternate
Alain Berranger ? NPOC Primary
Carlos Aguirre ? Nominating Committee Appointee
Avri Doria ? Non Commercial SG ? Primary
Krista Papac ? Registrar SG ? Primary
Mary Wong ? NCUC ? Primary
Apology:
James Bladel ? Registrar SG alternate
Margie Milam


Staff:
Marika Konings
Julie Hedlund
Glen de Saint G?ry

Please let me know if your name has been left off the list.

Let me know if you have any questions.



Thank you.

Kind regards,



Glen


Glen de Saint G?ry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
http://gnso.icann.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120604/4c825664/attachment.html>

From marika.konings at icann.org  Mon Jun  4 13:59:05 2012
From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 06:59:05 -0700
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For final review - consent agenda
Message-ID: <CBF28BC9.2B66D%marika.konings@icann.org>

Dear All,

As discussed during the SCI meeting last week, please find attached for final review the latest version of the proposed language for the consent agenda.

As a reminder, this issue was discussed extensively at the SCI meeting of 3 May (see notes of the meeting here: https://community.icann.org/x/JMTbAQ) and the language as originally proposed by J. Scott was updated accordingly (see http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/msg00172.html).

The SCI intends to finalize this language at its next meeting, so if you have any objections and/or suggestions, please share those with the mailing list as soon as possible.

With best regards,

Marika
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120604/8c187038/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Consent Agenda - Proposed Language - Updated 7 May 2012.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 26624 bytes
Desc: Consent Agenda - Proposed Language - Updated 7 May 2012.doc
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120604/8c187038/ConsentAgenda-ProposedLanguage-Updated7May2012.doc>

From KnobenW at telekom.de  Thu Jun  7 06:00:37 2012
From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de)
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 08:00:37 +0200
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: For final review - consent agenda
In-Reply-To: <CBF28BC9.2B66D%marika.konings@icann.org>
References: <CBF28BC9.2B66D%marika.konings@icann.org>
Message-ID: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596E6E5A90@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>

Thanks Marika,

Second phrase in the draft says: "All items that are not subject to a simple majority vote (see ICANN Bylaws, Article X, section 3-9) or are subject to absentee voting (see section 4.4. of the GNSO Operating Procedures) are not eligible for inclusion in the consent agenda."
Two questions: 1. Why don't we refer to the GNSO concil votings results table (which make reference to the bylaws, too)? 2. Excluding items from the consent agenda I understand we're here referring to items only which need a council vote. In other words: it should be clear that items not needing a council vote are not excluded.



Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich



________________________________
Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Marika Konings
Gesendet: Montag, 4. Juni 2012 15:59
An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Betreff: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For final review - consent agenda

Dear All,

As discussed during the SCI meeting last week, please find attached for final review the latest version of the proposed language for the consent agenda.

As a reminder, this issue was discussed extensively at the SCI meeting of 3 May (see notes of the meeting here: https://community.icann.org/x/JMTbAQ) and the language as originally proposed by J. Scott was updated accordingly (see http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/msg00172.html).

The SCI intends to finalize this language at its next meeting, so if you have any objections and/or suggestions, please share those with the mailing list as soon as possible.

With best regards,

Marika
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120607/9f0c8c84/attachment.html>

From marika.konings at icann.org  Thu Jun  7 13:30:04 2012
From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings)
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 06:30:04 -0700
Subject: Reminder Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Doodle poll to schedule next
 meeting
In-Reply-To: <CBF2877C.2B647%marika.konings@icann.org>
Message-ID: <CBF67962.2B9A4%marika.konings@icann.org>

If you have not done so yet, please complete the doodle poll.

Thanks,

Marika

From: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>
To: "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>>
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Doodle poll to schedule next meeting

Dear All,

Please complete the following doodle poll in order to try and find a time / date for the next meeting of the SCI: http://www.doodle.com/mixfiriwhunudr5v.

With best regards,

Marika

From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org<mailto:Glen at icann.org>>
To: "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>>
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised Mp3 and attendance: Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation 31 May 2012



Dear All,

Please watch out for the doodle Marika will be sending out to schedule the  next meeting of the Standing Committee on GNSO  Improvements Implementation.

Please find the Mp3 recording from the SCI call on Thursday, 31 May 2012 at:
http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20120531-en.mp3



on page:

http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#may



Transcript and Mp3 recorded will be posted shortly on:

http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#may



Attendees

Ron Andruff - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Primary

Wolf-Ulrich Knoben ? ISPCP ? Primary ? Chair
Anne Aikman-Scalese ? IPC Alternate
Angie Graves - Commercial and Business Users Constituency ? Alternate
Alain Berranger ? NPOC Primary
Carlos Aguirre ? Nominating Committee Appointee
Avri Doria ? Non Commercial SG ? Primary
Krista Papac ? Registrar SG ? Primary
Mary Wong ? NCUC ? Primary
Apology:
James Bladel ? Registrar SG alternate
Margie Milam


Staff:
Marika Konings
Julie Hedlund
Glen de Saint G?ry

Please let me know if your name has been left off the list.

Let me know if you have any questions.



Thank you.

Kind regards,



Glen


Glen de Saint G?ry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
http://gnso.icann.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120607/5b58ec3f/attachment.html>

From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org  Mon Jun 11 09:46:08 2012
From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 02:46:08 -0700
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Meeting Invitation /  Standing Committee on Improvements
 Implementation meeting/ Monday  18 June at 1300 UTC
Message-ID: <BDBCC21442A22640A4ECE2C75A8E215A7E1B1344AA@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>

Dear All,

The Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting teleconference is scheduled on Monday 18 June 2012 at 1300 UTC

06:00 PDT, 09:00 EDT, 14:00 London, 15:00 CET

For other places see:
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=SCI+Meeting&iso=20120618T13


Adobe Connect:
http://icann.adobeconnect.com/standcommdraft/

Dial-in details are below.

If you require a dial-out, please email me your preferred contact number.

Thank you
Kind regards
Nathalie
____________________________________________________________________________
Participant passcode: SCI

For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call.
____________________________________________________________________________
Dial in numbers:
Country                             Toll Numbers          Freephone/Toll Free Number

ARGENTINA                                                   0800-777-0519
AUSTRALIA           ADELAIDE:      61-8-8121-4842           1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA           BRISBANE:      61-7-3102-0944           1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA           CANBERRA:      61-2-6100-1944           1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA           MELBOURNE:     61-3-9010-7713           1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA           PERTH:         61-8-9467-5223           1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA           SYDNEY:        61-2-8205-8129           1-800-657-260
AUSTRIA                            43-1-92-81-113           0800-005-259
BELGIUM                            32-2-400-9861            0800-3-8795
BRAZIL                                                      0800-7610651
CHILE                                                       1230-020-2863
CHINA*                             86-400-810-4789          10800-712-1670
                                                            10800-120-1670
COLOMBIA                                                    01800-9-156474
CZECH REPUBLIC                     420-2-25-98-56-64        800-700-177
DENMARK                            45-7014-0284             8088-8324
ESTONIA                                                     800-011-1093
FINLAND             Land Line:     106-33-203               0-800-9-14610
FINLAND             Mobile:        09-106-33-203            0-800-9-14610
FRANCE              LYON:          33-4-26-69-12-85         080-511-1496
FRANCE              MARSEILLE:     33-4-86-06-00-85         080-511-1496
FRANCE              PARIS:         33-1-70-70-60-72         080-511-1496
GERMANY                            49-69-2222-20362         0800-664-4247
GREECE                             30-80-1-100-0687         00800-12-7312
HONG KONG                          852-3001-3863            800-962-856
HUNGARY                                                     06-800-12755
INDIA                                                       000-800-852-1268
INDONESIA                                                   001-803-011-3982
IRELAND                            353-1-246-7646           1800-992-368
ISRAEL                                                      1-80-9216162
ITALY                              39-02-3600-6007          800-986-383
JAPAN               OSAKA:         81-6-7739-4799           0066-33-132439
JAPAN               TOKYO:         81-3-5539-5191           0066-33-132439
LATVIA                                                      8000-3185
LUXEMBOURG                         352-27-000-1364
MALAYSIA                                                    1-800-81-3065
MEXICO                                                      001-866-376-9696
NETHERLANDS                        31-20-718-8588           0800-023-4378
NEW ZEALAND                        64-9-970-4771            0800-447-722
NORWAY                             47-21-590-062            800-15157
PANAMA                                                      011-001-800-5072065
PERU                                                        0800-53713
PHILIPPINES                        63-2-858-3716
POLAND                                                      00-800-1212572
PORTUGAL                                                    8008-14052
RUSSIA                                                      8-10-8002-0144011
SINGAPORE                          65-6883-9230             800-120-4663
SLOVAK REPUBLIC                    421-2-322-422-25
SOUTH AFRICA                                                080-09-80414
SOUTH KOREA                        82-2-6744-1083           00798-14800-7352
SPAIN                              34-91-414-25-33          800-300-053
SWEDEN                             46-8-566-19-348          0200-884-622
SWITZERLAND                        41-44-580-6398           0800-120-032
TAIWAN                             886-2-2795-7379          00801-137-797
THAILAND                                                    001-800-1206-66056
UNITED KINGDOM      BIRMINGHAM:    44-121-210-9025          0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM      GLASGOW:       44-141-202-3225          0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM      LEEDS:         44-113-301-2125          0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM      LONDON:        44-20-7108-6370          0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM      MANCHESTER:    44-161-601-1425          0808-238-6029
URUGUAY                                                     000-413-598-3421
USA                                1-517-345-9004           866-692-5726
VENEZUELA                                                   0800-1-00-3702

*Access to your conference call will be either of the numbers listed, dependent on the participants' local telecom provider.

Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone.

----------------------------
Nathalie Peregrine
GNSO Secretariat
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120611/1f2bb750/attachment.html>

From marika.konings at icann.org  Tue Jun 12 12:40:17 2012
From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 05:40:17 -0700
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: AW: For final review - consent agenda
In-Reply-To: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596E6E5A90@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
Message-ID: <CBFD0141.2BD36%marika.konings@icann.org>

In relation to question 1, the reason for referring to the ICANN Bylaws is that these are the governing rules. The GNSO Council voting result table is derived from the ICANN Bylaws. It is, therefore, recommended to refer to the authoritative document, which are the ICANN Bylaws. With regard to question 2, I see what you mean. I've made a couple of small edits which might address your concern as it now specifically refers to items that are excluded from the consent agenda instead of the previous wording which seemed to imply that only items that are subject to a simple majority vote are eligible for inclusion in the consent agenda. Further comments / edits welcome!

With best regards,

Marika

P.S. To facilitate review, I've accepted all the changes from the previous version.

From: "KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>" <KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>>
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>, "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>>
Subject: AW: For final review - consent agenda

Thanks Marika,

Second phrase in the draft says: "All items that are not subject to a simple majority vote (see ICANN Bylaws, Article X, section 3-9) or are subject to absentee voting (see section 4.4. of the GNSO Operating Procedures) are not eligible for inclusion in the consent agenda."
Two questions: 1. Why don't we refer to the GNSO concil votings results table (which make reference to the bylaws, too)? 2. Excluding items from the consent agenda I understand we're here referring to items only which need a council vote. In other words: it should be clear that items not needing a council vote are not excluded.



Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich



________________________________
Von: 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] Im Auftrag von Marika Konings
Gesendet: Montag, 4. Juni 2012 15:59
An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
Betreff: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For final review - consent agenda

Dear All,

As discussed during the SCI meeting last week, please find attached for final review the latest version of the proposed language for the consent agenda.

As a reminder, this issue was discussed extensively at the SCI meeting of 3 May (see notes of the meeting here: https://community.icann.org/x/JMTbAQ) and the language as originally proposed by J. Scott was updated accordingly (see http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/msg00172.html).

The SCI intends to finalize this language at its next meeting, so if you have any objections and/or suggestions, please share those with the mailing list as soon as possible.

With best regards,

Marika
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120612/be20b99e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Consent Agenda - Proposed Language - Updated 12 June 2012.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 26624 bytes
Desc: Consent Agenda - Proposed Language - Updated 12 June 2012.doc
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120612/be20b99e/ConsentAgenda-ProposedLanguage-Updated12June2012.doc>

From KnobenW at telekom.de  Wed Jun 13 10:28:02 2012
From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de)
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 12:28:02 +0200
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: AW: For final review - consent agenda
In-Reply-To: <CBFD0141.2BD36%marika.konings@icann.org>
References: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596E6E5A90@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
 <CBFD0141.2BD36%marika.konings@icann.org>
Message-ID: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596E896603@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>

I like that. Thanks.



Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich



________________________________
Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 12. Juni 2012 14:40
An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Betreff: Re: AW: For final review - consent agenda

In relation to question 1, the reason for referring to the ICANN Bylaws is that these are the governing rules. The GNSO Council voting result table is derived from the ICANN Bylaws. It is, therefore, recommended to refer to the authoritative document, which are the ICANN Bylaws. With regard to question 2, I see what you mean. I've made a couple of small edits which might address your concern as it now specifically refers to items that are excluded from the consent agenda instead of the previous wording which seemed to imply that only items that are subject to a simple majority vote are eligible for inclusion in the consent agenda. Further comments / edits welcome!

With best regards,

Marika

P.S. To facilitate review, I've accepted all the changes from the previous version.

From: "KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>" <KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>>
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>, "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>>
Subject: AW: For final review - consent agenda

Thanks Marika,

Second phrase in the draft says: "All items that are not subject to a simple majority vote (see ICANN Bylaws, Article X, section 3-9) or are subject to absentee voting (see section 4.4. of the GNSO Operating Procedures) are not eligible for inclusion in the consent agenda."
Two questions: 1. Why don't we refer to the GNSO concil votings results table (which make reference to the bylaws, too)? 2. Excluding items from the consent agenda I understand we're here referring to items only which need a council vote. In other words: it should be clear that items not needing a council vote are not excluded.



Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich



________________________________
Von: 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] Im Auftrag von Marika Konings
Gesendet: Montag, 4. Juni 2012 15:59
An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
Betreff: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For final review - consent agenda

Dear All,

As discussed during the SCI meeting last week, please find attached for final review the latest version of the proposed language for the consent agenda.

As a reminder, this issue was discussed extensively at the SCI meeting of 3 May (see notes of the meeting here: https://community.icann.org/x/JMTbAQ) and the language as originally proposed by J. Scott was updated accordingly (see http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/msg00172.html).

The SCI intends to finalize this language at its next meeting, so if you have any objections and/or suggestions, please share those with the mailing list as soon as possible.

With best regards,

Marika
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120613/9c4b6da5/attachment.html>

From Glen at icann.org  Thu Jun 14 11:42:37 2012
From: Glen at icann.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Glen_de_Saint_G=E9ry?=)
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 04:42:37 -0700
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] TR: Formal request for revision to the Prague meeting schedule to
 accommodate a meeting on Sunday, 24 June 2012 from 08:00 -09:00 in Congress
 III
In-Reply-To: <5792758163D76C4F9C36491EDF2AF7354B0DB10E25@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184B11BCB19B@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
 <5792758163D76C4F9C36491EDF2AF7354B0DB10E25@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184B11F807DF@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>


FYI
De : Nick Tomasso
Envoy? : jeudi 14 juin 2012 11:12
? : Glen de Saint G?ry
Cc : Tanzanica S. King
Objet : RE: Formal request for revision to the Prague meeting schedule to accommodate a meeting on Sunday, 24 June 2012 from 08:00 -09:00 in Congress III

Glen, just to close the loop ... we are making the change.

Nick

=================================
Nick Tomasso
Sr. Director, Meetings & Language Services
ICANN
mobile:  +1-310-630-7730
email:  nick.tomasso at icann.org<mailto:nick.tomasso at icann.org>
web:  www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

From: Glen de Saint G?ry
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 5:21 AM
To: Nick Tomasso
Cc: Tanzanica S. King; Nancy Lupiano; gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>; KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>
Subject: Formal request for revision to the Prague meeting schedule to accommodate a meeting on Sunday, 24 June 2012 from 08:00 -09:00 in Congress III

Dear Nick,

This is a formal request to you for a revision to the Prague meeting schedule which has officially closed on 25 May 2012.
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, chair of the Standing Committee on GNSO  Improvements Implementation (SCI), requests a meeting on Sunday, 24 June 2012 from 08:00 -09:00, one hour prior to the scheduled start of the GNSO Working session in Congress III.
Refer to http://prague44.icann.org/node/31565
Reason for Request:
The GNSO Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) has been tasked by the GNSO Council to address a number of issues relating to the implementation of recommendations coming out of the GNSO Improvements efforts. The SCI is currently addressing issues such as consent agenda, voting thresholds to delay a PDP and proxy voting. The SCI was planning to hold a teleconference meeting prior to Prague, but due to schedule conflicts, it is no longer possible to organize such a teleconference meeting. As a result, as most members of the SCI will be present in Prague, the SCI would like to hold a meeting on Sunday morning from 8.00 - 9.00 prior to the start of the GNSO Working Session.

AV Requirements for the meeting:
Public Audio Streaming
Remote participation via a telephone bridge : 866-692-5726 (US toll free #)
Transcription via Verizon

Room set up: Same as for the GNSO Working Session

Description of meeting:
There is no need to make any change to the description currently posted on the website.
Refer to http://prague44.icann.org/node/31565

Agenda:
If the request is granted, it will be documented on the agenda linked at:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/GNSO+Working+Session+Prague+Saturday+2012-06-23

We apologize for the lateness of this request, but hope that as it does not conflict with any other sessions scheduled for that day.
Please let me know if you need further details.

Thank you for considering our request.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Standing Committee chair Wolf-Ulrich Knoben.


Glen de Saint G?ry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
http://gnso.icann.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120614/a1d958cd/attachment.html>

From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org  Fri Jun 15 10:44:31 2012
From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine)
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:44:31 -0700
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER: Meeting Invitation /  Standing Committee on Improvements
 Implementation meeting/ Monday  18 June at 1300 UTC
Message-ID: <BDBCC21442A22640A4ECE2C75A8E215A7E1B3871B2@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>

Dear All,

The Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting teleconference is scheduled on Monday 18 June 2012 at 1300 UTC

06:00 PDT, 09:00 EDT, 14:00 London, 15:00 CET

For other places see:
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=SCI+Meeting&iso=20120618T13


Adobe Connect:
http://icann.adobeconnect.com/standcommdraft/

Dial-in details are below.

If you require a dial-out, please email me your preferred contact number.

Thank you
Kind regards
Nathalie
____________________________________________________________________________
Participant passcode: SCI

For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call.
____________________________________________________________________________
Dial in numbers:
Country                             Toll Numbers          Freephone/Toll Free Number

ARGENTINA                                                   0800-777-0519
AUSTRALIA           ADELAIDE:      61-8-8121-4842           1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA           BRISBANE:      61-7-3102-0944           1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA           CANBERRA:      61-2-6100-1944           1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA           MELBOURNE:     61-3-9010-7713           1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA           PERTH:         61-8-9467-5223           1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA           SYDNEY:        61-2-8205-8129           1-800-657-260
AUSTRIA                            43-1-92-81-113           0800-005-259
BELGIUM                            32-2-400-9861            0800-3-8795
BRAZIL                                                      0800-7610651
CHILE                                                       1230-020-2863
CHINA*                             86-400-810-4789          10800-712-1670
                                                            10800-120-1670
COLOMBIA                                                    01800-9-156474
CZECH REPUBLIC                     420-2-25-98-56-64        800-700-177
DENMARK                            45-7014-0284             8088-8324
ESTONIA                                                     800-011-1093
FINLAND             Land Line:     106-33-203               0-800-9-14610
FINLAND             Mobile:        09-106-33-203            0-800-9-14610
FRANCE              LYON:          33-4-26-69-12-85         080-511-1496
FRANCE              MARSEILLE:     33-4-86-06-00-85         080-511-1496
FRANCE              PARIS:         33-1-70-70-60-72         080-511-1496
GERMANY                            49-69-2222-20362         0800-664-4247
GREECE                             30-80-1-100-0687         00800-12-7312
HONG KONG                          852-3001-3863            800-962-856
HUNGARY                                                     06-800-12755
INDIA                                                       000-800-852-1268
INDONESIA                                                   001-803-011-3982
IRELAND                            353-1-246-7646           1800-992-368
ISRAEL                                                      1-80-9216162
ITALY                              39-02-3600-6007          800-986-383
JAPAN               OSAKA:         81-6-7739-4799           0066-33-132439
JAPAN               TOKYO:         81-3-5539-5191           0066-33-132439
LATVIA                                                      8000-3185
LUXEMBOURG                         352-27-000-1364
MALAYSIA                                                    1-800-81-3065
MEXICO                                                      001-866-376-9696
NETHERLANDS                        31-20-718-8588           0800-023-4378
NEW ZEALAND                        64-9-970-4771            0800-447-722
NORWAY                             47-21-590-062            800-15157
PANAMA                                                      011-001-800-5072065
PERU                                                        0800-53713
PHILIPPINES                        63-2-858-3716
POLAND                                                      00-800-1212572
PORTUGAL                                                    8008-14052
RUSSIA                                                      8-10-8002-0144011
SINGAPORE                          65-6883-9230             800-120-4663
SLOVAK REPUBLIC                    421-2-322-422-25
SOUTH AFRICA                                                080-09-80414
SOUTH KOREA                        82-2-6744-1083           00798-14800-7352
SPAIN                              34-91-414-25-33          800-300-053
SWEDEN                             46-8-566-19-348          0200-884-622
SWITZERLAND                        41-44-580-6398           0800-120-032
TAIWAN                             886-2-2795-7379          00801-137-797
THAILAND                                                    001-800-1206-66056
UNITED KINGDOM      BIRMINGHAM:    44-121-210-9025          0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM      GLASGOW:       44-141-202-3225          0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM      LEEDS:         44-113-301-2125          0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM      LONDON:        44-20-7108-6370          0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM      MANCHESTER:    44-161-601-1425          0808-238-6029
URUGUAY                                                     000-413-598-3421
USA                                1-517-345-9004           866-692-5726
VENEZUELA                                                   0800-1-00-3702

*Access to your conference call will be either of the numbers listed, dependent on the participants' local telecom provider.

Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone.

----------------------------
Nathalie Peregrine
GNSO Secretariat
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120615/f51ccbed/attachment.html>

From Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu  Fri Jun 15 14:58:15 2012
From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu)
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:58:15 -0400
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER: Meeting Invitation /
 Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting/ Monday
 18June at 1300 UTC
Message-ID: <4FDB155B0200005B0008F4C9@smtp.law.unh.edu>


My apologies again everyone - I'll be on a long haul flight from Asia to the US and will miss the call. I will look forward to seeing most of you in Prague.

Cheers
Mary

Sent from a mobile device; please excuse brevity and any grammatical or typographical errors.

"Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>" <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> wrote:


Dear All,

The Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting teleconference is scheduled on Monday 18 June 2012 at 1300 UTC

06:00 PDT, 09:00 EDT, 14:00 London, 15:00 CET

For other places see:
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=SCI+Meeting&iso=20120618T13


Adobe Connect:
http://icann.adobeconnect.com/standcommdraft/

Dial-in details are below.

If you require a dial-out, please email me your preferred contact number.

Thank you
Kind regards
Nathalie
____________________________________________________________________________
Participant passcode: SCI

For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call.
____________________________________________________________________________
Dial in numbers:
Country                             Toll Numbers          Freephone/Toll Free Number

ARGENTINA                                                   0800-777-0519
AUSTRALIA           ADELAIDE:      61-8-8121-4842           1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA           BRISBANE:      61-7-3102-0944           1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA           CANBERRA:      61-2-6100-1944           1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA           MELBOURNE:     61-3-9010-7713           1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA           PERTH:         61-8-9467-5223           1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA           SYDNEY:        61-2-8205-8129           1-800-657-260
AUSTRIA                            43-1-92-81-113           0800-005-259
BELGIUM                            32-2-400-9861            0800-3-8795
BRAZIL                                                      0800-7610651
CHILE                                                       1230-020-2863
CHINA*                             86-400-810-4789          10800-712-1670
                                                            10800-120-1670
COLOMBIA                                                    01800-9-156474
CZECH REPUBLIC                     420-2-25-98-56-64        800-700-177
DENMARK                            45-7014-0284             8088-8324
ESTONIA                                                     800-011-1093
FINLAND             Land Line:     106-33-203               0-800-9-14610
FINLAND             Mobile:        09-106-33-203            0-800-9-14610
FRANCE              LYON:          33-4-26-69-12-85         080-511-1496
FRANCE              MARSEILLE:     33-4-86-06-00-85         080-511-1496
FRANCE              PARIS:         33-1-70-70-60-72         080-511-1496
GERMANY                            49-69-2222-20362         0800-664-4247
GREECE                             30-80-1-100-0687         00800-12-7312
HONG KONG                          852-3001-3863            800-962-856
HUNGARY                                                     06-800-12755
INDIA                                                       000-800-852-1268
INDONESIA                                                   001-803-011-3982
IRELAND                            353-1-246-7646           1800-992-368
ISRAEL                                                      1-80-9216162
ITALY                              39-02-3600-6007          800-986-383
JAPAN               OSAKA:         81-6-7739-4799           0066-33-132439
JAPAN               TOKYO:         81-3-5539-5191           0066-33-132439
LATVIA                                                      8000-3185
LUXEMBOURG                         352-27-000-1364
MALAYSIA                                                    1-800-81-3065
MEXICO                                                      001-866-376-9696
NETHERLANDS                        31-20-718-8588           0800-023-4378
NEW ZEALAND                        64-9-970-4771            0800-447-722
NORWAY                             47-21-590-062            800-15157
PANAMA                                                      011-001-800-5072065
PERU                                                        0800-53713
PHILIPPINES                        63-2-858-3716
POLAND                                                      00-800-1212572
PORTUGAL                                                    8008-14052
RUSSIA                                                      8-10-8002-0144011
SINGAPORE                          65-6883-9230             800-120-4663
SLOVAK REPUBLIC                    421-2-322-422-25
SOUTH AFRICA                                                080-09-80414
SOUTH KOREA                        82-2-6744-1083           00798-14800-7352
SPAIN                              34-91-414-25-33          800-300-053
SWEDEN                             46-8-566-19-348          0200-884-622
SWITZERLAND                        41-44-580-6398           0800-120-032
TAIWAN                             886-2-2795-7379          00801-137-797
THAILAND                                                    001-800-1206-66056
UNITED KINGDOM      BIRMINGHAM:    44-121-210-9025          0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM      GLASGOW:       44-141-202-3225          0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM      LEEDS:         44-113-301-2125          0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM      LONDON:        44-20-7108-6370          0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM      MANCHESTER:    44-161-601-1425          0808-238-6029
URUGUAY                                                     000-413-598-3421
USA                                1-517-345-9004           866-692-5726
VENEZUELA                                                   0800-1-00-3702

*Access to your conference call will be either of the numbers listed, dependent on the participants' local telecom provider.

Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone.

----------------------------
Nathalie Peregrine
GNSO Secretariat
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)




From KnobenW at telekom.de  Sat Jun 16 06:02:19 2012
From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de)
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 08:02:19 +0200
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Consensus call
Message-ID: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596E928217@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>

All:

as discussed at the last SCI call I'd like to call for a consensus on the following items:
        - GNSO Council Voting Results Table
        - Consent Agenda

The related documents are attached.



Please provide comments asap that we may have a chance to reflect on our call on Monday next week.


Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120616/9877b26a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GNSO Council Voting_Consensus Call.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 120832 bytes
Desc: GNSO Council Voting_Consensus Call.doc
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120616/9877b26a/GNSOCouncilVoting_ConsensusCall.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Consent Agenda - Consensus Call.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 46592 bytes
Desc: Consent Agenda - Consensus Call.doc
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120616/9877b26a/ConsentAgenda-ConsensusCall.doc>

From KnobenW at telekom.de  Sat Jun 16 06:09:32 2012
From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de)
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 08:09:32 +0200
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
Message-ID: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596E92821A@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>

All:

this is the suggested agenda for the SCI call on Monday June 18, 13:00 UTC:

- Roll call
- Statement of Interests
- Approval of the agenda
- Background information (and suggested solutions) on
        - Deferral of Motions
        - Proxy Voting Procedure
        - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP
- Consensus items: GNSO Council Voting Results Table, Consent Agenda
- AOB: next meeting, F2F in Prague?


Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120616/6c0d00e3/attachment.html>

From AAikman at lrlaw.com  Sat Jun 16 18:30:19 2012
From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne)
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 18:30:19 +0000
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER: Meeting Invitation / Standing
 Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting/ Monday 18June at 1300 UTC
In-Reply-To: <4FDB155B0200005B0008F4C9@smtp.law.unh.edu>
References: <4FDB155B0200005B0008F4C9@smtp.law.unh.edu>
Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD955315349@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com>

I must also send apologies as I will be flying London to Tucson. Hope your telecom goes well. Anne

Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu]
Received: Friday, 15 Jun 2012, 3:59pm
To: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org [nathalie.peregrine at icann.org]
CC: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; gnso-secs at icann.org [gnso-secs at icann.org]
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER: Meeting Invitation / Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting/ Monday 18June at 1300 UTC


My apologies again everyone - I'll be on a long haul flight from Asia to the US and will miss the call. I will look forward to seeing most of you in Prague.

Cheers
Mary

Sent from a mobile device; please excuse brevity and any grammatical or typographical errors.

"Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>" <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> wrote:


Dear All,

The Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting teleconference is scheduled on Monday 18 June 2012 at 1300 UTC

06:00 PDT, 09:00 EDT, 14:00 London, 15:00 CET

For other places see:
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=SCI+Meeting&iso=20120618T13


Adobe Connect:
http://icann.adobeconnect.com/standcommdraft/

Dial-in details are below.

If you require a dial-out, please email me your preferred contact number.

Thank you
Kind regards
Nathalie
____________________________________________________________________________
Participant passcode: SCI

For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call.
____________________________________________________________________________
Dial in numbers:
Country                             Toll Numbers          Freephone/Toll Free Number

ARGENTINA                                                   0800-777-0519
AUSTRALIA           ADELAIDE:      61-8-8121-4842           1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA           BRISBANE:      61-7-3102-0944           1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA           CANBERRA:      61-2-6100-1944           1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA           MELBOURNE:     61-3-9010-7713           1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA           PERTH:         61-8-9467-5223           1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA           SYDNEY:        61-2-8205-8129           1-800-657-260
AUSTRIA                            43-1-92-81-113           0800-005-259
BELGIUM                            32-2-400-9861            0800-3-8795
BRAZIL                                                      0800-7610651
CHILE                                                       1230-020-2863
CHINA*                             86-400-810-4789          10800-712-1670
                                                            10800-120-1670
COLOMBIA                                                    01800-9-156474
CZECH REPUBLIC                     420-2-25-98-56-64        800-700-177
DENMARK                            45-7014-0284             8088-8324
ESTONIA                                                     800-011-1093
FINLAND             Land Line:     106-33-203               0-800-9-14610
FINLAND             Mobile:        09-106-33-203            0-800-9-14610
FRANCE              LYON:          33-4-26-69-12-85         080-511-1496
FRANCE              MARSEILLE:     33-4-86-06-00-85         080-511-1496
FRANCE              PARIS:         33-1-70-70-60-72         080-511-1496
GERMANY                            49-69-2222-20362         0800-664-4247
GREECE                             30-80-1-100-0687         00800-12-7312
HONG KONG                          852-3001-3863            800-962-856
HUNGARY                                                     06-800-12755
INDIA                                                       000-800-852-1268
INDONESIA                                                   001-803-011-3982
IRELAND                            353-1-246-7646           1800-992-368
ISRAEL                                                      1-80-9216162
ITALY                              39-02-3600-6007          800-986-383
JAPAN               OSAKA:         81-6-7739-4799           0066-33-132439
JAPAN               TOKYO:         81-3-5539-5191           0066-33-132439
LATVIA                                                      8000-3185
LUXEMBOURG                         352-27-000-1364
MALAYSIA                                                    1-800-81-3065
MEXICO                                                      001-866-376-9696
NETHERLANDS                        31-20-718-8588           0800-023-4378
NEW ZEALAND                        64-9-970-4771            0800-447-722
NORWAY                             47-21-590-062            800-15157
PANAMA                                                      011-001-800-5072065
PERU                                                        0800-53713
PHILIPPINES                        63-2-858-3716
POLAND                                                      00-800-1212572
PORTUGAL                                                    8008-14052
RUSSIA                                                      8-10-8002-0144011
SINGAPORE                          65-6883-9230             800-120-4663
SLOVAK REPUBLIC                    421-2-322-422-25
SOUTH AFRICA                                                080-09-80414
SOUTH KOREA                        82-2-6744-1083           00798-14800-7352
SPAIN                              34-91-414-25-33          800-300-053
SWEDEN                             46-8-566-19-348          0200-884-622
SWITZERLAND                        41-44-580-6398           0800-120-032
TAIWAN                             886-2-2795-7379          00801-137-797
THAILAND                                                    001-800-1206-66056
UNITED KINGDOM      BIRMINGHAM:    44-121-210-9025          0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM      GLASGOW:       44-141-202-3225          0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM      LEEDS:         44-113-301-2125          0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM      LONDON:        44-20-7108-6370          0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM      MANCHESTER:    44-161-601-1425          0808-238-6029
URUGUAY                                                     000-413-598-3421
USA                                1-517-345-9004           866-692-5726
VENEZUELA                                                   0800-1-00-3702

*Access to your conference call will be either of the numbers listed, dependent on the participants' local telecom provider.

Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone.

----------------------------
Nathalie Peregrine
GNSO Secretariat
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)





________________________________

For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>.

Phoenix (602)262-5311           Reno (775)823-2900
Tucson (520)622-2090            Albuquerque (505)764-5400
Las Vegas (702)949-8200         Silicon Valley (650)391-1380

  This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.

  In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120616/261b861f/attachment.html>

From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org  Sun Jun 17 16:42:56 2012
From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 09:42:56 -0700
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER: Meeting Invitation / Standing
 Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting/ Monday 18June at 1300 UTC
In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD955315349@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com>
References: <4FDB155B0200005B0008F4C9@smtp.law.unh.edu>
 <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD955315349@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com>
Message-ID: <BDBCC21442A22640A4ECE2C75A8E215A7E1B387264@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>

Dear Anne,

Thank you for notifying us.

Kindest regards

Nathalie

From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com]
Sent: samedi 16 juin 2012 20:30
To: Nathalie Peregrine; Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu
Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; gnso-secs at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER: Meeting Invitation / Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting/ Monday 18June at 1300 UTC

I must also send apologies as I will be flying London to Tucson. Hope your telecom goes well. Anne

Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu]
Received: Friday, 15 Jun 2012, 3:59pm
To: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org [nathalie.peregrine at icann.org]
CC: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]; gnso-secs at icann.org [gnso-secs at icann.org]
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER: Meeting Invitation / Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting/ Monday 18June at 1300 UTC

My apologies again everyone - I'll be on a long haul flight from Asia to the US and will miss the call. I will look forward to seeing most of you in Prague.

Cheers
Mary

Sent from a mobile device; please excuse brevity and any grammatical or typographical errors.

"Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>" <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> wrote:


Dear All,

The Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting teleconference is scheduled on Monday 18 June 2012 at 1300 UTC

06:00 PDT, 09:00 EDT, 14:00 London, 15:00 CET

For other places see:
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=SCI+Meeting&iso=20120618T13


Adobe Connect:
http://icann.adobeconnect.com/standcommdraft/

Dial-in details are below.

If you require a dial-out, please email me your preferred contact number.

Thank you
Kind regards
Nathalie
____________________________________________________________________________
Participant passcode: SCI

For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call.
____________________________________________________________________________
Dial in numbers:
Country                             Toll Numbers          Freephone/Toll Free Number

ARGENTINA                                                   0800-777-0519
AUSTRALIA           ADELAIDE:      61-8-8121-4842           1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA           BRISBANE:      61-7-3102-0944           1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA           CANBERRA:      61-2-6100-1944           1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA           MELBOURNE:     61-3-9010-7713           1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA           PERTH:         61-8-9467-5223           1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA           SYDNEY:        61-2-8205-8129           1-800-657-260
AUSTRIA                            43-1-92-81-113           0800-005-259
BELGIUM                            32-2-400-9861            0800-3-8795
BRAZIL                                                      0800-7610651
CHILE                                                       1230-020-2863
CHINA*                             86-400-810-4789          10800-712-1670
                                                            10800-120-1670
COLOMBIA                                                    01800-9-156474
CZECH REPUBLIC                     420-2-25-98-56-64        800-700-177
DENMARK                            45-7014-0284             8088-8324
ESTONIA                                                     800-011-1093
FINLAND             Land Line:     106-33-203               0-800-9-14610
FINLAND             Mobile:        09-106-33-203            0-800-9-14610
FRANCE              LYON:          33-4-26-69-12-85         080-511-1496
FRANCE              MARSEILLE:     33-4-86-06-00-85         080-511-1496
FRANCE              PARIS:         33-1-70-70-60-72         080-511-1496
GERMANY                            49-69-2222-20362         0800-664-4247
GREECE                             30-80-1-100-0687         00800-12-7312
HONG KONG                          852-3001-3863            800-962-856
HUNGARY                                                     06-800-12755
INDIA                                                       000-800-852-1268
INDONESIA                                                   001-803-011-3982
IRELAND                            353-1-246-7646           1800-992-368
ISRAEL                                                      1-80-9216162
ITALY                              39-02-3600-6007          800-986-383
JAPAN               OSAKA:         81-6-7739-4799           0066-33-132439
JAPAN               TOKYO:         81-3-5539-5191           0066-33-132439
LATVIA                                                      8000-3185
LUXEMBOURG                         352-27-000-1364
MALAYSIA                                                    1-800-81-3065
MEXICO                                                      001-866-376-9696
NETHERLANDS                        31-20-718-8588           0800-023-4378
NEW ZEALAND                        64-9-970-4771            0800-447-722
NORWAY                             47-21-590-062            800-15157
PANAMA                                                      011-001-800-5072065
PERU                                                        0800-53713
PHILIPPINES                        63-2-858-3716
POLAND                                                      00-800-1212572
PORTUGAL                                                    8008-14052
RUSSIA                                                      8-10-8002-0144011
SINGAPORE                          65-6883-9230             800-120-4663
SLOVAK REPUBLIC                    421-2-322-422-25
SOUTH AFRICA                                                080-09-80414
SOUTH KOREA                        82-2-6744-1083           00798-14800-7352
SPAIN                              34-91-414-25-33          800-300-053
SWEDEN                             46-8-566-19-348          0200-884-622
SWITZERLAND                        41-44-580-6398           0800-120-032
TAIWAN                             886-2-2795-7379          00801-137-797
THAILAND                                                    001-800-1206-66056
UNITED KINGDOM      BIRMINGHAM:    44-121-210-9025          0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM      GLASGOW:       44-141-202-3225          0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM      LEEDS:         44-113-301-2125          0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM      LONDON:        44-20-7108-6370          0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM      MANCHESTER:    44-161-601-1425          0808-238-6029
URUGUAY                                                     000-413-598-3421
USA                                1-517-345-9004           866-692-5726
VENEZUELA                                                   0800-1-00-3702

*Access to your conference call will be either of the numbers listed, dependent on the participants' local telecom provider.

Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone.

----------------------------
Nathalie Peregrine
GNSO Secretariat
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)




________________________________

For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>.
Phoenix (602)262-5311



Reno (775)823-2900

Tucson (520)622-2090



Albuquerque (505)764-5400

Las Vegas (702)949-8200



Silicon Valley (650)391-1380


  This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.

  In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120617/c996c687/attachment.html>

From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org  Tue Jun 19 11:15:44 2012
From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine)
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 04:15:44 -0700
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Mp3 and attendance: Standing Committee on Improvements
 Implementation 18th June 2012
Message-ID: <BDBCC21442A22640A4ECE2C75A8E215A7E1B387383@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>



Dear All,





Please find the Mp3 recording from the SCI call on Monday, 18 June 2012 at:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20120618-en.mp3 on page



Transcript and Mp3 recorded will be posted shortly on:

http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#jun



Attendees

Ron Andruff - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Primary

Wolf-Ulrich Knoben - ISPCP - Primary - Chair

Avri Doria - Non Commercial SG - Primary

James Bladel - Registrar SG - Alternate
Ray Fassett - Registry Stakeholder Group  (RySG) - Primary
Angie Graves - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Alternate

Carlos Aguirre - Nominating Committee Appointee

Apology:
Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC Alternate
Mary Wong - NCUC - Primary
Alain Berranger - (NPOC) - Primary

Staff:
Marika Konings
Julie Hedlund
Nathalie Peregrine

Please let me know if your name has been left off the list.

Let me know if you have any questions.



Thank you.

Kind regards,

Nathalie Peregrine for



GNSO Secretariat

gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120619/fcae587e/attachment.html>

From KnobenW at telekom.de  Tue Jun 19 11:39:29 2012
From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de)
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 13:39:29 +0200
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Last call for Consensus
In-Reply-To: <FA7B31AD7E618040B7867ACCFF723C8610A05E77@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
References: <FA7B31AD7E618040B7867ACCFF723C8610A05E77@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
Message-ID: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596E9FC501@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>



All:

this is the last call for a consensus on the following items:
        - GNSO Council Voting Results Table
        - Consent Agenda

The related documents are attached.


In case of no further request of amendment until Wednesday, 20 June 12:00 UTC, I'll incorporate these documents in the report to the council in Prague.


Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120619/2f9f6504/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GNSO Council Voting_Consensus Call.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 120832 bytes
Desc: GNSO Council Voting_Consensus Call.doc
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120619/2f9f6504/GNSOCouncilVoting_ConsensusCall.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Consent Agenda - Consensus Call.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 46592 bytes
Desc: Consent Agenda - Consensus Call.doc
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120619/2f9f6504/ConsentAgenda-ConsensusCall.doc>

From KnobenW at telekom.de  Tue Jun 19 16:17:56 2012
From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de)
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:17:56 +0200
Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
In-Reply-To: <CC04EE73.2C129%marika.konings@icann.org>
References: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596E92821A@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
 <CC04EE73.2C129%marika.konings@icann.org>
Message-ID: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596E9FC88E@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>

Personally my first reaction would be: we should handle it practically and with flexibility. Don't start amending the rules unless it is imperative.
Flexibility could mean that the SCI
- for a certain period of time (eg 1 year) monitors how many issues are raised by individuals/groups not covered by the charter. In case it exceeds a certain volume of requests (depending on the workload) the SCI may strictly return to the rules as written and not accept further requests from outside
- for the a.m. period of time the SCI may discuss all issues raised and make recommendations/suggestions re the issues in scope
- re Evan's SOI related issue I recall - if I'm right - that he was questioning the sense of some of the points asked for in the SOI. I think we should first find out whether his issue was more ALAC specific than relevant to the GNSO

What do others mean?


Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich



________________________________
Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org]
Gesendet: Montag, 18. Juni 2012 14:47
An: Avri Doria; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
Betreff: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda

Hi Wolf, Avri,

Under AOB, you might also want to cover the update to the GNSO Council which is scheduled for Prague. In addition to getting clarification on who should be responsible for putting out SCI recommendations for public comments (also of relevance in relation to the item on consensus items), there is also this issue with regard to who may raise issues with the SCI. As you may recall, Evan Leibovitch raised a suggestion with regard to the SOI. There may be other questions / suggestions that individuals may make in the future relating to GNSO Improvements topics. However, the SCI charter says 'requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council'. Should individual requests be directed to the GNSO Council for referral, or should there be another mechanism? It might be good to get clarification on this as well so it can be made clear to those that have proposals / questions.

With best regards,

Marika

From: "KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>" <KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>>
To: "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>>
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda

All:

this is the suggested agenda for the SCI call on Monday June 18, 13:00 UTC:

- Roll call
- Statement of Interests
- Approval of the agenda
- Background information (and suggested solutions) on
        - Deferral of Motions
        - Proxy Voting Procedure
        - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP
- Consensus items: GNSO Council Voting Results Table, Consent Agenda
- AOB: next meeting, F2F in Prague?


Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120619/fa4d2cac/attachment.html>

From AAikman at lrlaw.com  Tue Jun 19 16:20:27 2012
From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne)
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 16:20:27 +0000
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
In-Reply-To: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596E9FC88E@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
References: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596E92821A@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
 <CC04EE73.2C129%marika.konings@icann.org>
 <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596E9FC88E@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD955316600@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com>

Does the charter not define where the issues come from?  I would think it would have to be limited by the charter.
Anne

[cid:896032016 at 19062012-2684]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700
One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
Tel (520) 629-4428 ? Fax (520) 879-4725
AAikman at LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman at LRLaw.com> ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman>
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.


________________________________
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: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:18 AM
To: marika.konings at icann.org; avri at acm.org
Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda

Personally my first reaction would be: we should handle it practically and with flexibility. Don't start amending the rules unless it is imperative.
Flexibility could mean that the SCI
- for a certain period of time (eg 1 year) monitors how many issues are raised by individuals/groups not covered by the charter. In case it exceeds a certain volume of requests (depending on the workload) the SCI may strictly return to the rules as written and not accept further requests from outside
- for the a.m. period of time the SCI may discuss all issues raised and make recommendations/suggestions re the issues in scope
- re Evan's SOI related issue I recall - if I'm right - that he was questioning the sense of some of the points asked for in the SOI. I think we should first find out whether his issue was more ALAC specific than relevant to the GNSO

What do others mean?


Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich



________________________________
Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org]
Gesendet: Montag, 18. Juni 2012 14:47
An: Avri Doria; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
Betreff: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda

Hi Wolf, Avri,

Under AOB, you might also want to cover the update to the GNSO Council which is scheduled for Prague. In addition to getting clarification on who should be responsible for putting out SCI recommendations for public comments (also of relevance in relation to the item on consensus items), there is also this issue with regard to who may raise issues with the SCI. As you may recall, Evan Leibovitch raised a suggestion with regard to the SOI. There may be other questions / suggestions that individuals may make in the future relating to GNSO Improvements topics. However, the SCI charter says 'requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council'. Should individual requests be directed to the GNSO Council for referral, or should there be another mechanism? It might be good to get clarification on this as well so it can be made clear to those that have proposals / questions.

With best regards,

Marika

From: "KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>" <KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>>
To: "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>>
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda

All:

this is the suggested agenda for the SCI call on Monday June 18, 13:00 UTC:

- Roll call
- Statement of Interests
- Approval of the agenda
- Background information (and suggested solutions) on
        - Deferral of Motions
        - Proxy Voting Procedure
        - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP
- Consensus items: GNSO Council Voting Results Table, Consent Agenda
- AOB: next meeting, F2F in Prague?


Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich





________________________________

For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>.

Phoenix (602)262-5311           Reno (775)823-2900
Tucson (520)622-2090            Albuquerque (505)764-5400
Las Vegas (702)949-8200         Silicon Valley (650)391-1380

  This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.

  In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120619/5c444428/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3225 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120619/5c444428/image001.gif>

From randruff at rnapartners.com  Tue Jun 19 20:10:33 2012
From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff)
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 16:10:33 -0400
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
In-Reply-To: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596E9FC88E@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
Message-ID: <F37F928F6EBA4382BDCB741C60C4A2F1@ron>

I support your recommended way forward, Wolf-Ulrich.

 

Thanks,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

President

 

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10001

+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

 

  _____  

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: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 12:18 PM
To: marika.konings at icann.org; avri at acm.org
Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda

 

Personally my first reaction would be: we should handle it practically and
with flexibility. Don't start amending the rules unless it is imperative.

Flexibility could mean that the SCI

- for a certain period of time (eg 1 year) monitors how many issues are
raised by individuals/groups not covered by the charter. In case it exceeds
a certain volume of requests (depending on the workload) the SCI may
strictly return to the rules as written and not accept further requests from
outside

- for the a.m. period of time the SCI may discuss all issues raised and make
recommendations/suggestions re the issues in scope

- re Evan's SOI related issue I recall - if I'm right - that he was
questioning the sense of some of the points asked for in the SOI. I think we
should first find out whether his issue was more ALAC specific than relevant
to the GNSO

 

What do others mean?

 

Best regards 
Wolf-Ulrich 

 

 


  _____  


Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] 
Gesendet: Montag, 18. Juni 2012 14:47
An: Avri Doria; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
Betreff: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda

Hi Wolf, Avri,

 

Under AOB, you might also want to cover the update to the GNSO Council which
is scheduled for Prague. In addition to getting clarification on who should
be responsible for putting out SCI recommendations for public comments (also
of relevance in relation to the item on consensus items), there is also this
issue with regard to who may raise issues with the SCI. As you may recall,
Evan Leibovitch raised a suggestion with regard to the SOI. There may be
other questions / suggestions that individuals may make in the future
relating to GNSO Improvements topics. However, the SCI charter says
'requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the
GNSO Council'. Should individual requests be directed to the GNSO Council
for referral, or should there be another mechanism? It might be good to get
clarification on this as well so it can be made clear to those that have
proposals / questions.

 

With best regards,

 

Marika

 

From: "KnobenW at telekom.de" <KnobenW at telekom.de>
To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda

 

All:

 

this is the suggested agenda for the SCI call on Monday June 18, 13:00 UTC:

 

- Roll call

- Statement of Interests

- Approval of the agenda

- Background information (and suggested solutions) on

        - Deferral of Motions

        - Proxy Voting Procedure

        - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP

- Consensus items: GNSO Council Voting Results Table, Consent Agenda

- AOB: next meeting, F2F in Prague?

 

 

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120619/a94400ac/attachment.html>

From Krista.Papac at ausregistry.com  Tue Jun 19 22:06:36 2012
From: Krista.Papac at ausregistry.com (Krista Papac)
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:06:36 +1000
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Last call for Consensus
In-Reply-To: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596E9FC501@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
References: <FA7B31AD7E618040B7867ACCFF723C8610A05E77@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
 <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596E9FC501@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
Message-ID: <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB729CA32FAB@off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local>

All,

James Bladel and I met on this and we generally support both recommendations.

Thank you,
Krista Papac
General Manager, Policy & Industry Affairs
AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd
Email: krista.papac at ausregistry.com<mailto:krista.papac at ausregistry.com>
Web: www.ausregistry.com

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: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:39 AM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Last call for Consensus



All:

this is the last call for a consensus on the following items:
        - GNSO Council Voting Results Table
        - Consent Agenda

The related documents are attached.

In case of no further request of amendment until Wednesday, 20 June 12:00 UTC, I'll incorporate these documents in the report to the council in Prague.


Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120620/236303b9/attachment.html>

From carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com  Tue Jun 19 22:28:49 2012
From: carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com (carlos dionisio aguirre )
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:28:49 +0000
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Last call for Consensus
Message-ID: <SNT131-ds21EF908CC322CB4F53C65CB4FF0@phx.gbl>


I also support the recomnendations.

Carlos Dionisio ?guirre
International Director
AGEIA DENSI

Enviado desde mi dispositivo inal?mbrico BlackBerry?

-----Original Message-----
From: Krista Papac <Krista.Papac at ausregistry.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:06:36 
To: <KnobenW at telekom.de>; <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Last call for Consensus



All,
?
James Bladel and I met on this and we generally support both recommendations.
?
Thank you,

Krista Papac
General Manager, Policy & Industry Affairs
AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd
Email: krista.papac at ausregistry.com <mailto:krista.papac at ausregistry.com> 
Web: www.ausregistry.com
?


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: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:39 AM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Last call for Consensus
?

?

?

All:

?

this is the last call for a consensus on the following items:

??????? - GNSO Council Voting Results Table

??????? - Consent Agenda

?

The related documents are attached.

?

In case of no further request of amendment until Wednesday, 20 June 12:00 UTC, I'll incorporate these documents in the report to the council in Prague.

?

?

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich 

?



From jscottevans at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 19 22:51:19 2012
From: jscottevans at yahoo.com (J. Scott Evans)
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 15:51:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Last call for Consensus
In-Reply-To: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596E9FC501@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
References: <FA7B31AD7E618040B7867ACCFF723C8610A05E77@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596E9FC501@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
Message-ID: <1340146279.96008.YahooMailNeo@web160405.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

I support both.
?
j. scott evans - ?head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com




________________________________
 From: "KnobenW at telekom.de" <KnobenW at telekom.de>
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org 
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:39 AM
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Last call for Consensus
 

 
?
?
All:
?
this is the last call for a consensus on the following items:
??????? - GNSO Council Voting Results Table
??????? - Consent Agenda
?
The related documents are attached.
?
In case of no further request of amendment until Wednesday, 20 June 12:00 UTC, I'll incorporate these documents in the report to the council in Prague.
?
?
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120619/08982a8b/attachment.html>

From Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu  Tue Jun 19 23:00:24 2012
From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu)
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:00:24 -0400
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Last call for Consensus
In-Reply-To: <1340146279.96008.YahooMailNeo@web160405.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References:  <FA7B31AD7E618040B7867ACCFF723C8610A05E77@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
 <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596E9FC501@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
 <1340146279.96008.YahooMailNeo@web160405.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4FE0CC480200005B0008F714@smtp.law.unh.edu>

Hi and FYI - Avri and I are checking with our members and will inform everyone of any final comments by the deadline tomorrow.
 
Cheers
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: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans at yahoo.com>
To:"KnobenW at telekom.de" <KnobenW at telekom.de>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
Date: 6/19/2012 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Last call for Consensus
I support both.
 
j. scott evans -  head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com


From: "KnobenW at telekom.de" <KnobenW at telekom.de>
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org 
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:39 AM
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Last call for Consensus



 
 
All:
 
this is the last call for a consensus on the following items:
        - GNSO Council Voting Results Table
        - Consent Agenda
 
The related documents are attached.
 

In case of no further request of amendment until Wednesday, 20 June 12:00 UTC, I'll incorporate these documents in the report to the council in Prague.
 
 
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich 
 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120619/04fbdece/attachment.html>

From marika.konings at icann.org  Wed Jun 20 08:53:15 2012
From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings)
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:53:15 -0700
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD955316600@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com>
Message-ID: <CC0756E8.2C2C4%marika.konings@icann.org>

The SCI Charter notes that 'For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI expects to receive detailed input from the group affected by the process/operational change concerned. Such requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council'. As such, it currently does not foresee requests from individuals. A way around it could be to inform the GNSO Council when a request from an individual has been received and ask whether there are any objections from the GNSO Council for the SCI to consider the specific issue, but this may be something the SCI wants to discuss with the GNSO Council to make sure that they are comfortable with this procedure.

With regard to the issue raised by Evan, it related to the SOI. He noted that 'question in #9 is so broad and vague as to allow for people to avoid listing conflicts that are extremely relevant to ICANN transparency and accountability. It should be split into three discrete parts:
9) Do you own, hold stock in, work for, participate in an advisory capacity, or contract to
a) Any ICANN contracted parties?
b) Any organization providing professional services to any ICANN contracted parties?
c) Any organization presently applying to be an ICANN contracted party?'

Of course, the SCI could also elect to keep this recommendation on file to be further considered in conjunction with a general review of the SOI and/or GNSO Operating Procedures.

With best regards,

Marika

From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman at lrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com>>
To: "'KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:'KnobenW at telekom.de>'" <KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>>
Cc: "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>>
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda


Does the charter not define where the issues come from?  I would think it would have to be limited by the charter.
Anne

[cid:896032016 at 19062012-2684]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700
One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
Tel (520) 629-4428 ? Fax (520) 879-4725
AAikman at LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman at LRLaw.com> ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman>
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete theoriginal message.


________________________________
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: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:18 AM
To: marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>; avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>
Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda

Personally my first reaction would be: we should handle it practically and with flexibility. Don't start amending the rules unless it is imperative.
Flexibility could mean that the SCI
- for a certain period of time (eg 1 year) monitors how many issues are raised by individuals/groups not covered by the charter. In case it exceeds a certain volume of requests (depending on the workload) the SCI may strictly return to the rules as written and not accept further requests from outside
- for the a.m. period of time the SCI may discuss all issues raised and make recommendations/suggestions re the issues in scope
- re Evan's SOI related issue I recall - if I'm right - that he was questioning the sense of some of the points asked for in the SOI. I think we should first find out whether his issue was more ALAC specific than relevant to the GNSO

What do others mean?


Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich



________________________________
Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org]
Gesendet: Montag, 18. Juni 2012 14:47
An: Avri Doria; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
Betreff: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda

Hi Wolf, Avri,

Under AOB, you might also want to cover the update to the GNSO Council which is scheduled for Prague. In addition to getting clarification on who should be responsible for putting out SCI recommendations for public comments (also of relevance in relation to the item on consensus items), there is also this issue with regard to who may raise issues with the SCI. As you may recall, Evan Leibovitch raised a suggestion with regard to the SOI. There may be other questions / suggestions that individuals may make in the future relating to GNSO Improvements topics. However, the SCI charter says 'requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council'. Should individual requests be directed to the GNSO Council for referral, or should there be another mechanism? It might be good to get clarification on this as well so it can be made clear to those that have proposals / questions.

With best regards,

Marika

From: "KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>" <KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>>
To: "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>>
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda

All:

this is the suggested agenda for the SCI call on Monday June 18, 13:00 UTC:

- Roll call
- Statement of Interests
- Approval of the agenda
- Background information (and suggested solutions) on
        - Deferral of Motions
        - Proxy Voting Procedure
        - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP
- Consensus items: GNSO Council Voting Results Table, Consent Agenda
- AOB: next meeting, F2F in Prague?


Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich





________________________________

For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>.

Phoenix (602)262-5311           Reno (775)823-2900
Tucson (520)622-2090            Albuquerque (505)764-5400
Las Vegas (702)949-8200         Silicon Valley (650)391-1380

  This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.

  In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120620/8fd5ba76/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3225 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120620/8fd5ba76/image001.gif>

From KnobenW at telekom.de  Wed Jun 20 08:54:59 2012
From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de)
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 10:54:59 +0200
Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD955316600@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com>
References: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596E92821A@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
 <CC04EE73.2C129%marika.konings@icann.org>
 <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596E9FC88E@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
 <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD955316600@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com>
Message-ID: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596EAB69DE@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>

The charter reads:
<<For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI expects to receive detailed input from the group affected by the process/operational change concerned. Such requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council.>>

Request from individuals is not included.



Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich



________________________________
Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Juni 2012 18:20
An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; marika.konings at icann.org; avri at acm.org
Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda


Does the charter not define where the issues come from?  I would think it would have to be limited by the charter.
Anne

[cid:945584808 at 20062012-20A5]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700
One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725
AAikman at LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman at LRLaw.com> * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman>
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.


________________________________
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: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:18 AM
To: marika.konings at icann.org; avri at acm.org
Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda

Personally my first reaction would be: we should handle it practically and with flexibility. Don't start amending the rules unless it is imperative.
Flexibility could mean that the SCI
- for a certain period of time (eg 1 year) monitors how many issues are raised by individuals/groups not covered by the charter. In case it exceeds a certain volume of requests (depending on the workload) the SCI may strictly return to the rules as written and not accept further requests from outside
- for the a.m. period of time the SCI may discuss all issues raised and make recommendations/suggestions re the issues in scope
- re Evan's SOI related issue I recall - if I'm right - that he was questioning the sense of some of the points asked for in the SOI. I think we should first find out whether his issue was more ALAC specific than relevant to the GNSO

What do others mean?


Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich



________________________________
Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org]
Gesendet: Montag, 18. Juni 2012 14:47
An: Avri Doria; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
Betreff: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda

Hi Wolf, Avri,

Under AOB, you might also want to cover the update to the GNSO Council which is scheduled for Prague. In addition to getting clarification on who should be responsible for putting out SCI recommendations for public comments (also of relevance in relation to the item on consensus items), there is also this issue with regard to who may raise issues with the SCI. As you may recall, Evan Leibovitch raised a suggestion with regard to the SOI. There may be other questions / suggestions that individuals may make in the future relating to GNSO Improvements topics. However, the SCI charter says 'requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council'. Should individual requests be directed to the GNSO Council for referral, or should there be another mechanism? It might be good to get clarification on this as well so it can be made clear to those that have proposals / questions.

With best regards,

Marika

From: "KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>" <KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>>
To: "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>>
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda

All:

this is the suggested agenda for the SCI call on Monday June 18, 13:00 UTC:

- Roll call
- Statement of Interests
- Approval of the agenda
- Background information (and suggested solutions) on
        - Deferral of Motions
        - Proxy Voting Procedure
        - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP
- Consensus items: GNSO Council Voting Results Table, Consent Agenda
- AOB: next meeting, F2F in Prague?


Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich





________________________________

For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>.

Phoenix (602)262-5311           Reno (775)823-2900
Tucson (520)622-2090            Albuquerque (505)764-5400
Las Vegas (702)949-8200         Silicon Valley (650)391-1380

  This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.

  In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120620/f088e474/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3225 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120620/f088e474/image001.gif>

From KnobenW at telekom.de  Wed Jun 20 09:10:51 2012
From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de)
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:10:51 +0200
Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
In-Reply-To: <CC0756E8.2C2C4%marika.konings@icann.org>
References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD955316600@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com>
 <CC0756E8.2C2C4%marika.konings@icann.org>
Message-ID: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596EAB6A34@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>

Thanks Marika for the details.
I think we could discuss the procedural question in our meeting on Sunday, and I'll inform the council about.



Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich



________________________________
Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Juni 2012 10:53
An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri at acm.org
Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda

The SCI Charter notes that 'For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI expects to receive detailed input from the group affected by the process/operational change concerned. Such requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council'. As such, it currently does not foresee requests from individuals. A way around it could be to inform the GNSO Council when a request from an individual has been received and ask whether there are any objections from the GNSO Council for the SCI to consider the specific issue, but this may be something the SCI wants to discuss with the GNSO Council to make sure that they are comfortable with this procedure.

With regard to the issue raised by Evan, it related to the SOI. He noted that 'question in #9 is so broad and vague as to allow for people to avoid listing conflicts that are extremely relevant to ICANN transparency and accountability. It should be split into three discrete parts:
9) Do you own, hold stock in, work for, participate in an advisory capacity, or contract to
a) Any ICANN contracted parties?
b) Any organization providing professional services to any ICANN contracted parties?
c) Any organization presently applying to be an ICANN contracted party?'

Of course, the SCI could also elect to keep this recommendation on file to be further considered in conjunction with a general review of the SOI and/or GNSO Operating Procedures.

With best regards,

Marika

From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman at lrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com>>
To: "'KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:'KnobenW at telekom.de>'" <KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>>
Cc: "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>>
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda


Does the charter not define where the issues come from?  I would think it would have to be limited by the charter.
Anne

[cid:731370109 at 20062012-20AC]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700
One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725
AAikman at LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman at LRLaw.com> * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman>
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete theoriginal message.


________________________________
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: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:18 AM
To: marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>; avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>
Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda

Personally my first reaction would be: we should handle it practically and with flexibility. Don't start amending the rules unless it is imperative.
Flexibility could mean that the SCI
- for a certain period of time (eg 1 year) monitors how many issues are raised by individuals/groups not covered by the charter. In case it exceeds a certain volume of requests (depending on the workload) the SCI may strictly return to the rules as written and not accept further requests from outside
- for the a.m. period of time the SCI may discuss all issues raised and make recommendations/suggestions re the issues in scope
- re Evan's SOI related issue I recall - if I'm right - that he was questioning the sense of some of the points asked for in the SOI. I think we should first find out whether his issue was more ALAC specific than relevant to the GNSO

What do others mean?


Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich



________________________________
Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org]
Gesendet: Montag, 18. Juni 2012 14:47
An: Avri Doria; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
Betreff: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda

Hi Wolf, Avri,

Under AOB, you might also want to cover the update to the GNSO Council which is scheduled for Prague. In addition to getting clarification on who should be responsible for putting out SCI recommendations for public comments (also of relevance in relation to the item on consensus items), there is also this issue with regard to who may raise issues with the SCI. As you may recall, Evan Leibovitch raised a suggestion with regard to the SOI. There may be other questions / suggestions that individuals may make in the future relating to GNSO Improvements topics. However, the SCI charter says 'requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council'. Should individual requests be directed to the GNSO Council for referral, or should there be another mechanism? It might be good to get clarification on this as well so it can be made clear to those that have proposals / questions.

With best regards,

Marika

From: "KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>" <KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>>
To: "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>>
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda

All:

this is the suggested agenda for the SCI call on Monday June 18, 13:00 UTC:

- Roll call
- Statement of Interests
- Approval of the agenda
- Background information (and suggested solutions) on
        - Deferral of Motions
        - Proxy Voting Procedure
        - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP
- Consensus items: GNSO Council Voting Results Table, Consent Agenda
- AOB: next meeting, F2F in Prague?


Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich





________________________________

For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>.

Phoenix (602)262-5311           Reno (775)823-2900
Tucson (520)622-2090            Albuquerque (505)764-5400
Las Vegas (702)949-8200         Silicon Valley (650)391-1380

  This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.

  In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120620/ca30244e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3225 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120620/ca30244e/image001.gif>

From marika.konings at icann.org  Wed Jun 20 11:48:02 2012
From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings)
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 04:48:02 -0700
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FW: Adobe Connect - Note Pod Content from Standing Committee on
 Improvements Implementation
In-Reply-To: <3496435.3674.1340029993558.JavaMail.breezesvc@pacna7app08>
Message-ID: <CC07839F.2C319%marika.konings@icann.org>

Dear All,

Please find below the notes from this week's SCI meeting. With regard to the request to obtain further information on the process the Board uses for deferrals, we can report that there is currently no formal procedure used by the Board. In practice, the Board can and does defer action on items at the discretion of the Board and Chair, but it doesn't follow a formal procedure.

Please note that the next meeting is scheduled F2F in Prague on Sunday 24 June from 8.00 ? 9.00 local time in conference room Congress III.

With best regards,

Marika

From: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>
Reply-To: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>
Subject: Adobe Connect - Note Pod Content from Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation


SCI Meeting Agenda - 18 June 2012

1. Roll call

2. Statement of Interests

3. Approval of the agenda

4. Background information (and suggested solutions) on

        - Deferral of Motions

        - Proxy Voting Procedure

        - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP

5. Consensus items: GNSO Council Voting Results Table, Consent Agenda

6. AOB: next meeting, F2F in Prague?

Notes:

- Deferral of Motions: Should this remain an informal practice or should it become a formal procedure (original question of the GNSO Council)? Some expressed support for formalizing this procedure, but some also suggested it could continue as an informal practice, with the option to review in a certain amount of time. Possible requirements if policy is formalized: deferral only for maximum one meeting (although exceptions may have to possible?) /

NCA should also be able to defer motions (not only SG/C) / ony allow deferral if information is incomplete (and until information is complete) / One deferral per SG or C?.

If SCI response is 'yes' it should be a formal process, it should also include a recommendation for how this process should look for GNSO Council consideration. Staff to check what process, if any, the Board uses for deferral of motions. Issue was also discussed in earlier discussions of PPSC - aren't same arguments still valid for keeping it an informal process? Instead of formal process, SCI could also consider issuing 'guidance'.

No decision yet on formal or informal process. Wolf to report back to the GNSO Council on the status of discussions in the update in Prague - might result in further guidance. Consider taking a poll amongst membership - but question would need to be clear. Wolf to circulate proposed language to the list re. update.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120620/080373fb/attachment.html>

From Krista.Papac at ausregistry.com  Wed Jun 20 14:12:55 2012
From: Krista.Papac at ausregistry.com (Krista Papac)
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 00:12:55 +1000
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
In-Reply-To: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596EAB69DE@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
References: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596E92821A@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
 <CC04EE73.2C129%marika.konings@icann.org>
 <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596E9FC88E@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
 <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD955316600@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com>
 <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596EAB69DE@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
Message-ID: <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB729CA3329A@off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local>

My initial reaction is we should stick with what's in the Charter and take requests from the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council.

Krista Papac
General Manager, Policy & Industry Affairs
AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd
Email: krista.papac at ausregistry.com<mailto:krista.papac at ausregistry.com>
Web: www.ausregistry.com

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, June 20, 2012 1:55 AM
To: AAikman at lrlaw.com; marika.konings at icann.org; avri at acm.org
Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda

The charter reads:
<<For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI expects to receive detailed input from the group affected by the process/operational change concerned. Such requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council.>>

Request from individuals is not included.



Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich


________________________________
Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Juni 2012 18:20
An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>; avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>
Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
Does the charter not define where the issues come from?  I would think it would have to be limited by the charter.
Anne

[cid:image001.gif at 01CD4EB4.19BB2F70]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700
One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725
AAikman at LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman at LRLaw.com> * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman>
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.


________________________________
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: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:18 AM
To: marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>; avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>
Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
Personally my first reaction would be: we should handle it practically and with flexibility. Don't start amending the rules unless it is imperative.
Flexibility could mean that the SCI
- for a certain period of time (eg 1 year) monitors how many issues are raised by individuals/groups not covered by the charter. In case it exceeds a certain volume of requests (depending on the workload) the SCI may strictly return to the rules as written and not accept further requests from outside
- for the a.m. period of time the SCI may discuss all issues raised and make recommendations/suggestions re the issues in scope
- re Evan's SOI related issue I recall - if I'm right - that he was questioning the sense of some of the points asked for in the SOI. I think we should first find out whether his issue was more ALAC specific than relevant to the GNSO

What do others mean?


Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich


________________________________
Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org]
Gesendet: Montag, 18. Juni 2012 14:47
An: Avri Doria; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
Betreff: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
Hi Wolf, Avri,

Under AOB, you might also want to cover the update to the GNSO Council which is scheduled for Prague. In addition to getting clarification on who should be responsible for putting out SCI recommendations for public comments (also of relevance in relation to the item on consensus items), there is also this issue with regard to who may raise issues with the SCI. As you may recall, Evan Leibovitch raised a suggestion with regard to the SOI. There may be other questions / suggestions that individuals may make in the future relating to GNSO Improvements topics. However, the SCI charter says 'requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council'. Should individual requests be directed to the GNSO Council for referral, or should there be another mechanism? It might be good to get clarification on this as well so it can be made clear to those that have proposals / questions.

With best regards,

Marika

From: "KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>" <KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>>
To: "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>>
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda

All:

this is the suggested agenda for the SCI call on Monday June 18, 13:00 UTC:

- Roll call
- Statement of Interests
- Approval of the agenda
- Background information (and suggested solutions) on
        - Deferral of Motions
        - Proxy Voting Procedure
        - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP
- Consensus items: GNSO Council Voting Results Table, Consent Agenda
- AOB: next meeting, F2F in Prague?


Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich





________________________________

For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>.
Phoenix (602)262-5311



Reno (775)823-2900

Tucson (520)622-2090



Albuquerque (505)764-5400

Las Vegas (702)949-8200



Silicon Valley (650)391-1380


  This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.

  In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120621/116f2725/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3225 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120621/116f2725/image001.gif>

From jbladel at godaddy.com  Wed Jun 20 14:25:33 2012
From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel)
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 07:25:33 -0700
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
Message-ID: <20120620072533.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.50c72ea95d.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120620/0f35a0e0/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3225 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120620/0f35a0e0/image001.gif>

From avri at acm.org  Wed Jun 20 14:33:07 2012
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:33:07 +0200
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
In-Reply-To: <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB729CA3329A@off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local>
References: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596E92821A@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <CC04EE73.2C129%marika.konings@icann.org> <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596E9FC88E@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD955316600@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596EAB69DE@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB729CA3329A@off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local>
Message-ID: <3ab580b0-4baf-476e-94cf-1b579b693bbe@email.android.com>


Hi,

Assuming none of the SG/Cs wish to take up the issue as their own (I have not consulted with mine yet), another possibility is that ALAC, using its liaison status with the g-council, bring up the issue of SOI (CoI) with the g-council itself. The g-council could then send the issue to the SCI, ignore it, or find some other approach. Alternatively, ALAC could request an issues report on the subject of SOI/CoI in GNSO policy making etc.

One thing the GNSO should probably avoid, especially during this time of ICANN introspection concerning conflicts of interest, is ignoring the issue.

But I agree we should handle this within the rules established by our charter.

avri


Krista Papac <Krista.Papac at ausregistry.com> wrote:

>My initial reaction is we should stick with what's in the Charter and
>take requests from the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO
>Council.
>
>Krista Papac
>General Manager, Policy & Industry Affairs
>AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd
>Email:
>krista.papac at ausregistry.com<mailto:krista.papac at ausregistry.com>
>Web: www.ausregistry.com
>
>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, June 20, 2012 1:55 AM
>To: AAikman at lrlaw.com; marika.konings at icann.org; avri at acm.org
>Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
>Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
>
>The charter reads:
><<For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI expects
>to receive detailed input from the group affected by the
>process/operational change concerned. Such requests can be made by
>either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council.>>
>
>Request from individuals is not included.
>
>
>
>Best regards
>Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>________________________________
>Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com]
>Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Juni 2012 18:20
>An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich;
>marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>;
>avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>
>Cc:
>gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
>Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
>Does the charter not define where the issues come from?  I would think
>it would have to be limited by the charter.
>Anne
>
>[cid:image001.gif at 01CD4EB4.19BB2F70]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
>Of Counsel
>Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700
>One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
>Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725
>AAikman at LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman at LRLaw.com> *
>www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman>
>P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
>intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
>If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
>agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
>hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
>copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
>was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the
>original message.
>
>
>________________________________
>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: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:18 AM
>To: marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>;
>avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>
>Cc:
>gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
>Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
>Personally my first reaction would be: we should handle it practically
>and with flexibility. Don't start amending the rules unless it is
>imperative.
>Flexibility could mean that the SCI
>- for a certain period of time (eg 1 year) monitors how many issues are
>raised by individuals/groups not covered by the charter. In case it
>exceeds a certain volume of requests (depending on the workload) the
>SCI may strictly return to the rules as written and not accept further
>requests from outside
>- for the a.m. period of time the SCI may discuss all issues raised and
>make recommendations/suggestions re the issues in scope
>- re Evan's SOI related issue I recall - if I'm right - that he was
>questioning the sense of some of the points asked for in the SOI. I
>think we should first find out whether his issue was more ALAC specific
>than relevant to the GNSO
>
>What do others mean?
>
>
>Best regards
>Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>________________________________
>Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org]
>Gesendet: Montag, 18. Juni 2012 14:47
>An: Avri Doria; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
>Betreff: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
>Hi Wolf, Avri,
>
>Under AOB, you might also want to cover the update to the GNSO Council
>which is scheduled for Prague. In addition to getting clarification on
>who should be responsible for putting out SCI recommendations for
>public comments (also of relevance in relation to the item on consensus
>items), there is also this issue with regard to who may raise issues
>with the SCI. As you may recall, Evan Leibovitch raised a suggestion
>with regard to the SOI. There may be other questions / suggestions that
>individuals may make in the future relating to GNSO Improvements
>topics. However, the SCI charter says 'requests can be made by either
>the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council'. Should
>individual requests be directed to the GNSO Council for referral, or
>should there be another mechanism? It might be good to get
>clarification on this as well so it can be made clear to those that
>have proposals / questions.
>
>With best regards,
>
>Marika
>
>From: "KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>"
><KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>>
>To:
>"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>>
>Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
>
>All:
>
>this is the suggested agenda for the SCI call on Monday June 18, 13:00
>UTC:
>
>- Roll call
>- Statement of Interests
>- Approval of the agenda
>- Background information (and suggested solutions) on
>        - Deferral of Motions
>        - Proxy Voting Procedure
>        - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP
>- Consensus items: GNSO Council Voting Results Table, Consent Agenda
>- AOB: next meeting, F2F in Prague?
>
>
>Best regards
>Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>
>For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to
>www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>.
>Phoenix (602)262-5311
>
>
>
>Reno (775)823-2900
>
>Tucson (520)622-2090
>
>
>
>Albuquerque (505)764-5400
>
>Las Vegas (702)949-8200
>
>
>
>Silicon Valley (650)391-1380
>
>
>This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity
>to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the
>intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering
>the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
>dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly
>prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
>notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by
>return E-Mail or by telephone.
>
>In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you
>that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not
>intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer
>for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the
>taxpayer.



From avri at acm.org  Wed Jun 20 15:18:40 2012
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:18:40 +0200
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
In-Reply-To: <20120620072533.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.50c72ea95d.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>
References: <20120620072533.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.50c72ea95d.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <7223b562-efca-4bd2-bfd1-3ff086e7d36f@email.android.com>


Hi,

Just checking my interpretation of:

<<For items that are submitted for review ?on request?, the SCI expects to receive detailed input from the group affected by the process/operational change concerned. Such requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council.>>

This means that issues can be brought by:

- the g-council itself
- a Working Group
- a drafting team
- a CWG chartered by the g-council
- any sort of group/team that the g-council has chartered

It does not include SG/C, as they are chartered by the Board and not the g-council.  If a SG/C wants to bring an item to the SCI, they must take it to the g-council first.

If so, then what we are asking ALAC to do is not different than what we would ask any SG/C to do.

But if the JAS or any of the other CWG's were to bring the issue, that would be ok.

Do I interpret this as others would?

avri



From KnobenW at telekom.de  Wed Jun 20 16:09:44 2012
From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de)
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:09:44 +0200
Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
In-Reply-To: <3ab580b0-4baf-476e-94cf-1b579b693bbe@email.android.com>
References: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596E92821A@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
 <CC04EE73.2C129%marika.konings@icann.org>
 <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596E9FC88E@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
 <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD955316600@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com>
 <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596EAB69DE@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
 <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB729CA3329A@off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local>
 <3ab580b0-4baf-476e-94cf-1b579b693bbe@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596EAB7035@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>


I think the initiative through ALAC-Alan (council liaison)-GNSO council would be what is covered by the rules.


Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich

-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Juni 2012 16:33
An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda


Hi,

Assuming none of the SG/Cs wish to take up the issue as their own (I have not consulted with mine yet), another possibility is that ALAC, using its liaison status with the g-council, bring up the issue of SOI (CoI) with the g-council itself. The g-council could then send the issue to the SCI, ignore it, or find some other approach. Alternatively, ALAC could request an issues report on the subject of SOI/CoI in GNSO policy making etc.

One thing the GNSO should probably avoid, especially during this time of ICANN introspection concerning conflicts of interest, is ignoring the issue.

But I agree we should handle this within the rules established by our charter.

avri


Krista Papac <Krista.Papac at ausregistry.com> wrote:

>My initial reaction is we should stick with what's in the Charter and
>take requests from the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO
>Council.
>
>Krista Papac
>General Manager, Policy & Industry Affairs
>AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd
>Email:
>krista.papac at ausregistry.com<mailto:krista.papac at ausregistry.com>
>Web: www.ausregistry.com
>
>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, June 20, 2012 1:55 AM
>To: AAikman at lrlaw.com; marika.konings at icann.org; avri at acm.org
>Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
>Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
>
>The charter reads:
><<For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI expects
>to receive detailed input from the group affected by the
>process/operational change concerned. Such requests can be made by
>either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council.>>
>
>Request from individuals is not included.
>
>
>
>Best regards
>Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>________________________________
>Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com]
>Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Juni 2012 18:20
>An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich;
>marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>;
>avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>
>Cc:
>gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
>Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
>Does the charter not define where the issues come from?  I would think
>it would have to be limited by the charter.
>Anne
>
>[cid:image001.gif at 01CD4EB4.19BB2F70]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
>Of Counsel
>Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700
>One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
>Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725
>AAikman at LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman at LRLaw.com> *
>www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman>
>P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
>intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
>If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
>agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
>hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
>copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
>was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the
>original message.
>
>
>________________________________
>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: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:18 AM
>To: marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>;
>avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>
>Cc:
>gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
>Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
>Personally my first reaction would be: we should handle it practically
>and with flexibility. Don't start amending the rules unless it is
>imperative.
>Flexibility could mean that the SCI
>- for a certain period of time (eg 1 year) monitors how many issues are
>raised by individuals/groups not covered by the charter. In case it
>exceeds a certain volume of requests (depending on the workload) the
>SCI may strictly return to the rules as written and not accept further
>requests from outside
>- for the a.m. period of time the SCI may discuss all issues raised and
>make recommendations/suggestions re the issues in scope
>- re Evan's SOI related issue I recall - if I'm right - that he was
>questioning the sense of some of the points asked for in the SOI. I
>think we should first find out whether his issue was more ALAC specific
>than relevant to the GNSO
>
>What do others mean?
>
>
>Best regards
>Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>________________________________
>Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org]
>Gesendet: Montag, 18. Juni 2012 14:47
>An: Avri Doria; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
>Betreff: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
>Hi Wolf, Avri,
>
>Under AOB, you might also want to cover the update to the GNSO Council
>which is scheduled for Prague. In addition to getting clarification on
>who should be responsible for putting out SCI recommendations for
>public comments (also of relevance in relation to the item on consensus
>items), there is also this issue with regard to who may raise issues
>with the SCI. As you may recall, Evan Leibovitch raised a suggestion
>with regard to the SOI. There may be other questions / suggestions that
>individuals may make in the future relating to GNSO Improvements
>topics. However, the SCI charter says 'requests can be made by either
>the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council'. Should
>individual requests be directed to the GNSO Council for referral, or
>should there be another mechanism? It might be good to get
>clarification on this as well so it can be made clear to those that
>have proposals / questions.
>
>With best regards,
>
>Marika
>
>From: "KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>"
><KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>>
>To:
>"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>>
>Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
>
>All:
>
>this is the suggested agenda for the SCI call on Monday June 18, 13:00
>UTC:
>
>- Roll call
>- Statement of Interests
>- Approval of the agenda
>- Background information (and suggested solutions) on
>        - Deferral of Motions
>        - Proxy Voting Procedure
>        - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP
>- Consensus items: GNSO Council Voting Results Table, Consent Agenda
>- AOB: next meeting, F2F in Prague?
>
>
>Best regards
>Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>
>For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to
>www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>.
>Phoenix (602)262-5311
>
>
>
>Reno (775)823-2900
>
>Tucson (520)622-2090
>
>
>
>Albuquerque (505)764-5400
>
>Las Vegas (702)949-8200
>
>
>
>Silicon Valley (650)391-1380
>
>
>This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity
>to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the
>intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering
>the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
>dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly
>prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
>notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by
>return E-Mail or by telephone.
>
>In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you
>that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not
>intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer
>for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the
>taxpayer.




From KnobenW at telekom.de  Wed Jun 20 16:25:21 2012
From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de)
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:25:21 +0200
Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
In-Reply-To: <7223b562-efca-4bd2-bfd1-3ff086e7d36f@email.android.com>
References: <20120620072533.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.50c72ea95d.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>
 <7223b562-efca-4bd2-bfd1-3ff086e7d36f@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596EAB705E@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>


Avri,

your interpretation seems to be as written. I wonder whether there was a specific idea behind. Is this what we wanted when we drafted the charter: excluding the SGs/Cs from "requesting an issue" directly?
I'm just raising questions. As there is not yet any controversial case there may be no urgency to solve one.


Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich

-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Juni 2012 17:19
An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda


Hi,

Just checking my interpretation of:

<<For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI expects to receive detailed input from the group affected by the process/operational change concerned. Such requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council.>>

This means that issues can be brought by:

- the g-council itself
- a Working Group
- a drafting team
- a CWG chartered by the g-council
- any sort of group/team that the g-council has chartered

It does not include SG/C, as they are chartered by the Board and not the g-council.  If a SG/C wants to bring an item to the SCI, they must take it to the g-council first.

If so, then what we are asking ALAC to do is not different than what we would ask any SG/C to do.

But if the JAS or any of the other CWG's were to bring the issue, that would be ok.

Do I interpret this as others would?

avri




From AAikman at lrlaw.com  Wed Jun 20 18:25:20 2012
From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne)
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:25:20 +0000
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
In-Reply-To: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596EAB7035@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
References: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596E92821A@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
 <CC04EE73.2C129%marika.konings@icann.org>
 <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596E9FC88E@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
 <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD955316600@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com>
 <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596EAB69DE@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
 <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB729CA3329A@off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local>
 <3ab580b0-4baf-476e-94cf-1b579b693bbe@email.android.com>
 <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596EAB7035@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD955318220@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com>


I think that "a group chartered by the GNSO" must refer to a working group or other team with an adopted GNSO charter.  It does not appear to me on the surface that this phrase refers to a constituency.  I doubt SCI wants to become involved in taking direct requests from constituencies rather than from the GNSO directly or from working groups chartered by the GNSO which are composed of members from more than one constituency and/or stakeholder group.
Anne


Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700
One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725
AAikman at LRLaw.com * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.

-----Original Message-----
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, June 20, 2012 9:10 AM
To: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda


I think the initiative through ALAC-Alan (council liaison)-GNSO council would be what is covered by the rules.


Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich

-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Juni 2012 16:33
An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda


Hi,

Assuming none of the SG/Cs wish to take up the issue as their own (I have not consulted with mine yet), another possibility is that ALAC, using its liaison status with the g-council, bring up the issue of SOI (CoI) with the g-council itself. The g-council could then send the issue to the SCI, ignore it, or find some other approach. Alternatively, ALAC could request an issues report on the subject of SOI/CoI in GNSO policy making etc.

One thing the GNSO should probably avoid, especially during this time of ICANN introspection concerning conflicts of interest, is ignoring the issue.

But I agree we should handle this within the rules established by our charter.

avri


Krista Papac <Krista.Papac at ausregistry.com> wrote:

>My initial reaction is we should stick with what's in the Charter and
>take requests from the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO
>Council.
>
>Krista Papac
>General Manager, Policy & Industry Affairs AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd
>Email:
>krista.papac at ausregistry.com<mailto:krista.papac at ausregistry.com>
>Web: www.ausregistry.com
>
>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, June 20, 2012 1:55 AM
>To: AAikman at lrlaw.com; marika.konings at icann.org; avri at acm.org
>Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
>Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
>
>The charter reads:
><<For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI expects
>to receive detailed input from the group affected by the
>process/operational change concerned. Such requests can be made by
>either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council.>>
>
>Request from individuals is not included.
>
>
>
>Best regards
>Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>________________________________
>Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com]
>Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Juni 2012 18:20
>An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich;
>marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>;
>avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>
>Cc:
>gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
>Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Does the
>charter not define where the issues come from?  I would think it would
>have to be limited by the charter.
>Anne
>
>[cid:image001.gif at 01CD4EB4.19BB2F70]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel
>Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700 One South Church Avenue * Tucson,
>Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725
>AAikman at LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman at LRLaw.com> *
>www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman>
>P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
>intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
>If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
>agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
>hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying
>of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication was
>received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the
>original message.
>
>
>________________________________
>From:
>owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-s
>c 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: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:18 AM
>To: marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>;
>avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>
>Cc:
>gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
>Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Personally my
>first reaction would be: we should handle it practically and with
>flexibility. Don't start amending the rules unless it is imperative.
>Flexibility could mean that the SCI
>- for a certain period of time (eg 1 year) monitors how many issues are
>raised by individuals/groups not covered by the charter. In case it
>exceeds a certain volume of requests (depending on the workload) the
>SCI may strictly return to the rules as written and not accept further
>requests from outside
>- for the a.m. period of time the SCI may discuss all issues raised and
>make recommendations/suggestions re the issues in scope
>- re Evan's SOI related issue I recall - if I'm right - that he was
>questioning the sense of some of the points asked for in the SOI. I
>think we should first find out whether his issue was more ALAC specific
>than relevant to the GNSO
>
>What do others mean?
>
>
>Best regards
>Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>________________________________
>Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org]
>Gesendet: Montag, 18. Juni 2012 14:47
>An: Avri Doria; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
>Betreff: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Hi Wolf, Avri,
>
>Under AOB, you might also want to cover the update to the GNSO Council
>which is scheduled for Prague. In addition to getting clarification on
>who should be responsible for putting out SCI recommendations for
>public comments (also of relevance in relation to the item on consensus
>items), there is also this issue with regard to who may raise issues
>with the SCI. As you may recall, Evan Leibovitch raised a suggestion
>with regard to the SOI. There may be other questions / suggestions that
>individuals may make in the future relating to GNSO Improvements
>topics. However, the SCI charter says 'requests can be made by either
>the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council'. Should
>individual requests be directed to the GNSO Council for referral, or
>should there be another mechanism? It might be good to get
>clarification on this as well so it can be made clear to those that
>have proposals / questions.
>
>With best regards,
>
>Marika
>
>From: "KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>"
><KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>>
>To:
>"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
>>>
>Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
>
>All:
>
>this is the suggested agenda for the SCI call on Monday June 18, 13:00
>UTC:
>
>- Roll call
>- Statement of Interests
>- Approval of the agenda
>- Background information (and suggested solutions) on
>        - Deferral of Motions
>        - Proxy Voting Procedure
>        - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP
>- Consensus items: GNSO Council Voting Results Table, Consent Agenda
>- AOB: next meeting, F2F in Prague?
>
>
>Best regards
>Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>
>For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to
>www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>.
>Phoenix (602)262-5311
>
>
>
>Reno (775)823-2900
>
>Tucson (520)622-2090
>
>
>
>Albuquerque (505)764-5400
>
>Las Vegas (702)949-8200
>
>
>
>Silicon Valley (650)391-1380
>
>
>This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity
>to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the
>intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering
>the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
>dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly
>prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
>notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by
>return E-Mail or by telephone.
>
>In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you
>that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not
>intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer
>for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the
>taxpayer.




----------------------
For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com.

Phoenix (602)262-5311                           Reno (775)823-2900
Tucson (520)622-2090                            Albuquerque (505)764-5400
Las Vegas (702)949-8200                     Silicon Valley (650)391-1380

  This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.
  In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer



From KnobenW at telekom.de  Wed Jun 20 18:47:55 2012
From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de)
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 20:47:55 +0200
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report
Message-ID: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596EAB708D@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>

All,

attached is the draft report to the council on Saturday morning. Please feel free to comment/amend.
I'd like to send it to Glen by tomorrow 19:00 UTC for posting.


Best regards
Wolf-

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120620/700cd7ff/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SCI Presentation - 23 June 2012_council.ppt
Type: application/vnd.ms-powerpoint
Size: 1506816 bytes
Desc: SCI Presentation - 23 June 2012_council.ppt
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120620/700cd7ff/SCIPresentation-23June2012_council.ppt>

From angie at webgroup.com  Wed Jun 20 19:40:19 2012
From: angie at webgroup.com (Angie Graves)
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:40:19 -0400
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report
In-Reply-To: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596EAB708D@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
References: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596EAB708D@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
Message-ID: <CAGeCciyGWAHrv8X5BpCTN=YxL=D1gMfQK-_m9WaKvLHL1++FxA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi All,

For the Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP, I see no content in the
presentation.

>From Marika, the current thresholds for terminating and initiating a PDP
are as follows:

   - Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a
   Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant
   cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of
   termination.
   - Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as
   described in Annex
A<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>):
   requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or
   more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House.

A staff recommendation has been made but has not yet gained consensus in
the group.

Best regards,

Angie


On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:47 PM, <KnobenW at telekom.de> wrote:

>  All,
>
> attached is the draft report to the council on Saturday morning. Please
> feel free to comment/amend.
> I'd like to send it to Glen by tomorrow 19:00 UTC for posting.
>
> Best regards
> Wolf-
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120620/8a3ea54b/attachment.html>

From KnobenW at telekom.de  Wed Jun 20 20:05:11 2012
From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de)
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 22:05:11 +0200
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
Message-ID: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596EAB709C@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>


All

this is the suggested agenda for the SCI F2F meeting in Prague on Sunday, 24 June, 6:00 UTC:

1. Roll call
2. Statement of Interests
3. Approval of the agenda
4. Discuss council reaction from Saturday
5. Background information (and suggested solutions) on
        - Proxy Voting Procedure
        - Deferral of Motions
        - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP
6. Raising an issue
7. Working Group survey
8. AOB
        - issues brought up from the floor
        - next meeting


Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120620/e1abe912/attachment.html>

From KnobenW at telekom.de  Wed Jun 20 20:06:17 2012
From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de)
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 22:06:17 +0200
Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report
In-Reply-To: <CAGeCciyGWAHrv8X5BpCTN=YxL=D1gMfQK-_m9WaKvLHL1++FxA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596EAB708D@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
 <CAGeCciyGWAHrv8X5BpCTN=YxL=D1gMfQK-_m9WaKvLHL1++FxA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596EAB709D@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>

Thanks Angie, I'll include this



Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich



________________________________
Von: angie12345 at gmail.com [mailto:angie12345 at gmail.com] Im Auftrag von Angie Graves
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Juni 2012 21:40
An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report

Hi All,

For the Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP, I see no content in the presentation.

>From Marika, the current thresholds for terminating and initiating a PDP are as follows:

 *   Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of termination.
 *   Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House.

A staff recommendation has been made but has not yet gained consensus in the group.

Best regards,

Angie


On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:47 PM, <KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>> wrote:
All,

attached is the draft report to the council on Saturday morning. Please feel free to comment/amend.
I'd like to send it to Glen by tomorrow 19:00 UTC for posting.

Best regards
Wolf-


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120620/a5eaeebc/attachment.html>

From Krista.Papac at ausregistry.com  Wed Jun 20 22:08:35 2012
From: Krista.Papac at ausregistry.com (Krista Papac)
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:08:35 +1000
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
In-Reply-To: <3ab580b0-4baf-476e-94cf-1b579b693bbe@email.android.com>
References: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596E92821A@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
 <CC04EE73.2C129%marika.konings@icann.org>
 <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596E9FC88E@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
 <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD955316600@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com>
 <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596EAB69DE@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
 <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB729CA3329A@off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local>
 <3ab580b0-4baf-476e-94cf-1b579b693bbe@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB729CA332A9@off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local>


It makes sense to me, Avri, that the ALAC would use its Council liaison to bring an issue to the SCI.

Krista Papac
General Manager, Policy & Industry Affairs
AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd
Email: krista.papac at ausregistry.com
Web: www.ausregistry.com


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 7:33 AM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda


Hi,

Assuming none of the SG/Cs wish to take up the issue as their own (I have not consulted with mine yet), another possibility is that ALAC, using its liaison status with the g-council, bring up the issue of SOI (CoI) with the g-council itself. The g-council could then send the issue to the SCI, ignore it, or find some other approach. Alternatively, ALAC could request an issues report on the subject of SOI/CoI in GNSO policy making etc.

One thing the GNSO should probably avoid, especially during this time of ICANN introspection concerning conflicts of interest, is ignoring the issue.

But I agree we should handle this within the rules established by our charter.

avri


Krista Papac <Krista.Papac at ausregistry.com> wrote:

>My initial reaction is we should stick with what's in the Charter and 
>take requests from the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO 
>Council.
>
>Krista Papac
>General Manager, Policy & Industry Affairs AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd
>Email:
>krista.papac at ausregistry.com<mailto:krista.papac at ausregistry.com>
>Web: www.ausregistry.com
>
>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, June 20, 2012 1:55 AM
>To: AAikman at lrlaw.com; marika.konings at icann.org; avri at acm.org
>Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
>Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
>
>The charter reads:
><<For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI expects 
>to receive detailed input from the group affected by the 
>process/operational change concerned. Such requests can be made by 
>either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council.>>
>
>Request from individuals is not included.
>
>
>
>Best regards
>Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>________________________________
>Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com]
>Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Juni 2012 18:20
>An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich;
>marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>;
>avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>
>Cc:
>gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
>Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Does the 
>charter not define where the issues come from?  I would think it would 
>have to be limited by the charter.
>Anne
>
>[cid:image001.gif at 01CD4EB4.19BB2F70]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 
>Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700 One South Church Avenue * Tucson, 
>Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725 
>AAikman at LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman at LRLaw.com> * 
>www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman>
>P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information 
>intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
>If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the 
>agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are 
>hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying 
>of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication was 
>received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the 
>original message.
>
>
>________________________________
>From:
>owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-s
>c 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: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:18 AM
>To: marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>;
>avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>
>Cc:
>gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
>Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Personally my 
>first reaction would be: we should handle it practically and with 
>flexibility. Don't start amending the rules unless it is imperative.
>Flexibility could mean that the SCI
>- for a certain period of time (eg 1 year) monitors how many issues are 
>raised by individuals/groups not covered by the charter. In case it 
>exceeds a certain volume of requests (depending on the workload) the 
>SCI may strictly return to the rules as written and not accept further 
>requests from outside
>- for the a.m. period of time the SCI may discuss all issues raised and 
>make recommendations/suggestions re the issues in scope
>- re Evan's SOI related issue I recall - if I'm right - that he was 
>questioning the sense of some of the points asked for in the SOI. I 
>think we should first find out whether his issue was more ALAC specific 
>than relevant to the GNSO
>
>What do others mean?
>
>
>Best regards
>Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>________________________________
>Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org]
>Gesendet: Montag, 18. Juni 2012 14:47
>An: Avri Doria; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
>Betreff: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Hi Wolf, Avri,
>
>Under AOB, you might also want to cover the update to the GNSO Council 
>which is scheduled for Prague. In addition to getting clarification on 
>who should be responsible for putting out SCI recommendations for 
>public comments (also of relevance in relation to the item on consensus 
>items), there is also this issue with regard to who may raise issues 
>with the SCI. As you may recall, Evan Leibovitch raised a suggestion 
>with regard to the SOI. There may be other questions / suggestions that 
>individuals may make in the future relating to GNSO Improvements 
>topics. However, the SCI charter says 'requests can be made by either 
>the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council'. Should 
>individual requests be directed to the GNSO Council for referral, or 
>should there be another mechanism? It might be good to get 
>clarification on this as well so it can be made clear to those that 
>have proposals / questions.
>
>With best regards,
>
>Marika
>
>From: "KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>"
><KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>>
>To:
>"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
>>>
>Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
>
>All:
>
>this is the suggested agenda for the SCI call on Monday June 18, 13:00
>UTC:
>
>- Roll call
>- Statement of Interests
>- Approval of the agenda
>- Background information (and suggested solutions) on
>        - Deferral of Motions
>        - Proxy Voting Procedure
>        - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP
>- Consensus items: GNSO Council Voting Results Table, Consent Agenda
>- AOB: next meeting, F2F in Prague?
>
>
>Best regards
>Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>
>For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to 
>www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>.
>Phoenix (602)262-5311
>
>
>
>Reno (775)823-2900
>
>Tucson (520)622-2090
>
>
>
>Albuquerque (505)764-5400
>
>Las Vegas (702)949-8200
>
>
>
>Silicon Valley (650)391-1380
>
>
>This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity 
>to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the 
>intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering 
>the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 
>dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly 
>prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please 
>notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by 
>return E-Mail or by telephone.
>
>In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you 
>that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not 
>intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer 
>for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the 
>taxpayer.




From AAikman at lrlaw.com  Wed Jun 20 23:08:40 2012
From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne)
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 23:08:40 +0000
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report
In-Reply-To: <CAGeCciyGWAHrv8X5BpCTN=YxL=D1gMfQK-_m9WaKvLHL1++FxA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596EAB708D@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
 <CAGeCciyGWAHrv8X5BpCTN=YxL=D1gMfQK-_m9WaKvLHL1++FxA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95531860B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com>

Thanks Angie. This information was certainly in an earlier draft. In fact, it was part of the change I suggested because I didn't see the language about "only for a significant cause".  Wolf-Ulrich and Marika, was the document sent out for consensus somehow different from the one that we had all previously been working on?
Anne

[cid:718020723 at 20062012-1598]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700
One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
Tel (520) 629-4428 ? Fax (520) 879-4725
AAikman at LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman at LRLaw.com> ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman>
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.


________________________________
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Angie Graves
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 12:40 PM
To: KnobenW at telekom.de
Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report

Hi All,

For the Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP, I see no content in the presentation.

From Marika, the current thresholds for terminating and initiating a PDP are as follows:

  *   Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of termination.
  *   Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House.

A staff recommendation has been made but has not yet gained consensus in the group.

Best regards,

Angie


On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:47 PM, <KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>> wrote:
All,

attached is the draft report to the council on Saturday morning. Please feel free to comment/amend.
I'd like to send it to Glen by tomorrow 19:00 UTC for posting.

Best regards
Wolf-





________________________________

For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>.

Phoenix (602)262-5311           Reno (775)823-2900
Tucson (520)622-2090            Albuquerque (505)764-5400
Las Vegas (702)949-8200         Silicon Valley (650)391-1380

  This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.

  In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120620/c4ad812a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3225 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120620/c4ad812a/image001.gif>

From KnobenW at telekom.de  Thu Jun 21 04:21:59 2012
From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de)
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 06:21:59 +0200
Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report
In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95531860B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com>
References: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596EAB708D@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
 <CAGeCciyGWAHrv8X5BpCTN=YxL=D1gMfQK-_m9WaKvLHL1++FxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95531860B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com>
Message-ID: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596EAB70BB@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>

What we have found consensus is as it used to be:

Initiate PDP Within Scope

Bylaws:<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X-3.9>
Art X, ?3(9)b<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X-3.9>

> ? Both
OR
> ? One

3

AND

5

5

OR

9

Terminate a PDP
(?only for a significant cause?)

Bylaws:<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X-3.9>
Art X, ?3(9)g<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X-3.9>

>= ? Both
OR
>= ? One AND > ? One

5

AND

9

6

AND

7

4

AND

10


I will include in my presentation the modification suggested by staff and the status of discussion.



Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich



________________________________
Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2012 01:09
An: 'Angie Graves'; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report


Thanks Angie. This information was certainly in an earlier draft. In fact, it was part of the change I suggested because I didn't see the language about "only for a significant cause".  Wolf-Ulrich and Marika, was the document sent out for consensus somehow different from the one that we had all previously been working on?
Anne

[cid:542211604 at 21062012-2ADB]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700
One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725
AAikman at LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman at LRLaw.com> * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman>
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.


________________________________
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Angie Graves
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 12:40 PM
To: KnobenW at telekom.de
Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report

Hi All,

For the Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP, I see no content in the presentation.

From Marika, the current thresholds for terminating and initiating a PDP are as follows:

 *   Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of termination.
 *   Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House.

A staff recommendation has been made but has not yet gained consensus in the group.

Best regards,

Angie


On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:47 PM, <KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>> wrote:
All,

attached is the draft report to the council on Saturday morning. Please feel free to comment/amend.
I'd like to send it to Glen by tomorrow 19:00 UTC for posting.

Best regards
Wolf-





________________________________

For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>.

Phoenix (602)262-5311           Reno (775)823-2900
Tucson (520)622-2090            Albuquerque (505)764-5400
Las Vegas (702)949-8200         Silicon Valley (650)391-1380

  This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.

  In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120621/1aa017c9/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3225 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120621/1aa017c9/image001.gif>

From Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu  Thu Jun 21 13:48:12 2012
From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu)
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 09:48:12 -0400
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
Message-ID: <4FE2EDD90200005B0008F88D@smtp.law.unh.edu>


Actually, my recollection/impression was that when the SCI charter was drafted the phrase was intended to refer to SGs and Cs as well. Can staff or someone with a better memory than I recall one way or the other?

Sent from a mobile device; please excuse brevity and any grammatical or typographical errors.

"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrlaw.com> wrote:



I think that "a group chartered by the GNSO" must refer to a working group or other team with an adopted GNSO charter.  It does not appear to me on the surface that this phrase refers to a constituency.  I doubt SCI wants to become involved in taking direct requests from constituencies rather than from the GNSO directly or from working groups chartered by the GNSO which are composed of members from more than one constituency and/or stakeholder group.
Anne


Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700
One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725
AAikman at LRLaw.com * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.

-----Original Message-----
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, June 20, 2012 9:10 AM
To: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda


I think the initiative through ALAC-Alan (council liaison)-GNSO council would be what is covered by the rules.


Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich

-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Juni 2012 16:33
An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda


Hi,

Assuming none of the SG/Cs wish to take up the issue as their own (I have not consulted with mine yet), another possibility is that ALAC, using its liaison status with the g-council, bring up the issue of SOI (CoI) with the g-council itself. The g-council could then send the issue to the SCI, ignore it, or find some other approach. Alternatively, ALAC could request an issues report on the subject of SOI/CoI in GNSO policy making etc.

One thing the GNSO should probably avoid, especially during this time of ICANN introspection concerning conflicts of interest, is ignoring the issue.

But I agree we should handle this within the rules established by our charter.

avri


Krista Papac <Krista.Papac at ausregistry.com> wrote:

>My initial reaction is we should stick with what's in the Charter and
>take requests from the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO
>Council.
>
>Krista Papac
>General Manager, Policy & Industry Affairs AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd
>Email:
>krista.papac at ausregistry.com<mailto:krista.papac at ausregistry.com>
>Web: www.ausregistry.com
>
>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, June 20, 2012 1:55 AM
>To: AAikman at lrlaw.com; marika.konings at icann.org; avri at acm.org
>Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
>Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
>
>The charter reads:
><<For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI expects
>to receive detailed input from the group affected by the
>process/operational change concerned. Such requests can be made by
>either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council.>>
>
>Request from individuals is not included.
>
>
>
>Best regards
>Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>________________________________
>Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com]
>Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Juni 2012 18:20
>An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich;
>marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>;
>avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>
>Cc:
>gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
>Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Does the
>charter not define where the issues come from?  I would think it would
>have to be limited by the charter.
>Anne
>
>[cid:image001.gif at 01CD4EB4.19BB2F70]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel
>Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700 One South Church Avenue * Tucson,
>Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725
>AAikman at LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman at LRLaw.com> *
>www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman>
>P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
>intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
>If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
>agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
>hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying
>of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication was
>received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the
>original message.
>
>
>________________________________
>From:
>owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-s
>c 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: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:18 AM
>To: marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>;
>avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>
>Cc:
>gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
>Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Personally my
>first reaction would be: we should handle it practically and with
>flexibility. Don't start amending the rules unless it is imperative.
>Flexibility could mean that the SCI
>- for a certain period of time (eg 1 year) monitors how many issues are
>raised by individuals/groups not covered by the charter. In case it
>exceeds a certain volume of requests (depending on the workload) the
>SCI may strictly return to the rules as written and not accept further
>requests from outside
>- for the a.m. period of time the SCI may discuss all issues raised and
>make recommendations/suggestions re the issues in scope
>- re Evan's SOI related issue I recall - if I'm right - that he was
>questioning the sense of some of the points asked for in the SOI. I
>think we should first find out whether his issue was more ALAC specific
>than relevant to the GNSO
>
>What do others mean?
>
>
>Best regards
>Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>________________________________
>Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org]
>Gesendet: Montag, 18. Juni 2012 14:47
>An: Avri Doria; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
>Betreff: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Hi Wolf, Avri,
>
>Under AOB, you might also want to cover the update to the GNSO Council
>which is scheduled for Prague. In addition to getting clarification on
>who should be responsible for putting out SCI recommendations for
>public comments (also of relevance in relation to the item on consensus
>items), there is also this issue with regard to who may raise issues
>with the SCI. As you may recall, Evan Leibovitch raised a suggestion
>with regard to the SOI. There may be other questions / suggestions that
>individuals may make in the future relating to GNSO Improvements
>topics. However, the SCI charter says 'requests can be made by either
>the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council'. Should
>individual requests be directed to the GNSO Council for referral, or
>should there be another mechanism? It might be good to get
>clarification on this as well so it can be made clear to those that
>have proposals / questions.
>
>With best regards,
>
>Marika
>
>From: "KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>"
><KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>>
>To:
>"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
>>>
>Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
>
>All:
>
>this is the suggested agenda for the SCI call on Monday June 18, 13:00
>UTC:
>
>- Roll call
>- Statement of Interests
>- Approval of the agenda
>- Background information (and suggested solutions) on
>        - Deferral of Motions
>        - Proxy Voting Procedure
>        - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP
>- Consensus items: GNSO Council Voting Results Table, Consent Agenda
>- AOB: next meeting, F2F in Prague?
>
>
>Best regards
>Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>
>For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to
>www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>.
>Phoenix (602)262-5311
>
>
>
>Reno (775)823-2900
>
>Tucson (520)622-2090
>
>
>
>Albuquerque (505)764-5400
>
>Las Vegas (702)949-8200
>
>
>
>Silicon Valley (650)391-1380
>
>
>This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity
>to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the
>intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering
>the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
>dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly
>prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
>notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by
>return E-Mail or by telephone.
>
>In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you
>that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not
>intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer
>for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the
>taxpayer.




----------------------
For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com.

Phoenix (602)262-5311                           Reno (775)823-2900
Tucson (520)622-2090                            Albuquerque (505)764-5400
Las Vegas (702)949-8200                     Silicon Valley (650)391-1380

  This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.
  In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer





From randruff at rnapartners.com  Thu Jun 21 16:00:27 2012
From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff)
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:00:27 -0400
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report
In-Reply-To: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596EAB708D@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
Message-ID: <380E37960B514A15ACD75BEB00EEC026@ron>

The slides capture a good summary of our work to date, in my view,
Wolf-Ulrich - with one exception.  The second to last slide creates an issue
that could, and should be avoided at this time.
 
The question as to whether the SCI should put our work product out to public
comment (or send back to GNSO) seems to over-complicate the purpose of a
Standing Committee. The SCI role, as I understand it, is to knock off any
rough edges of processes that, in practice, expose implementation issues.
Therefore, it is neither NEW policy nor process; rather our work is simply
an effort to ensure that all of the gears fit cleanly into the chain that
drives ICANN.
 
Until the SCI has discussed this in more detail and taken a decision on the
matter there is no reason to bring it up to anyone outside of the SCI, in my
view.  For this reason I urge you to remove this slide from the
presentation.
 
Thank you for your consideration.
 
Kind regards,
 
RA
 
Ronald N. Andruff

President

 

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10001

+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

 

 

  _____  

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, June 20, 2012 2:48 PM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report


All,
 
attached is the draft report to the council on Saturday morning. Please feel
free to comment/amend.
I'd like to send it to Glen by tomorrow 19:00 UTC for posting.
 
Best regards
Wolf-
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120621/5820a048/attachment.html>

From randruff at rnapartners.com  Thu Jun 21 16:06:56 2012
From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff)
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:06:56 -0400
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
In-Reply-To: <4FE2EDD90200005B0008F88D@smtp.law.unh.edu>
Message-ID: <818F3E640D474B50889E69E0E82765C4@ron>


Dear All,

I'm in agreement with Mary on this one.  As noted in my previous email
regarding the slides that W-U has prepared, the SCI has been established to
smooth out those circumstances where the recommended policy/process needs
some further refinement to be effective in practice.  Therefore it should
not matter from which part of the community the request comes - other than
from individuals - for the SCI to review an implementation process, in my
view.

Kind regards,

RA

Ronald N. Andruff

President

 

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10001

+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of
Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 9:48 AM
To: AAikman at lrlaw.com
Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; KnobenW at telekom.de
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda


Actually, my recollection/impression was that when the SCI charter was
drafted the phrase was intended to refer to SGs and Cs as well. Can staff or
someone with a better memory than I recall one way or the other?

Sent from a mobile device; please excuse brevity and any grammatical or
typographical errors.

"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrlaw.com> wrote:



I think that "a group chartered by the GNSO" must refer to a working group
or other team with an adopted GNSO charter.  It does not appear to me on the
surface that this phrase refers to a constituency.  I doubt SCI wants to
become involved in taking direct requests from constituencies rather than
from the GNSO directly or from working groups chartered by the GNSO which
are composed of members from more than one constituency and/or stakeholder
group.
Anne


Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700
One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 *
Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman at LRLaw.com * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please
consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent
responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is prohibited.  If this communication was received in error,
please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.

-----Original Message-----
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, June 20, 2012 9:10 AM
To: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda


I think the initiative through ALAC-Alan (council liaison)-GNSO council
would be what is covered by the rules.


Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich

-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Juni 2012 16:33
An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda


Hi,

Assuming none of the SG/Cs wish to take up the issue as their own (I have
not consulted with mine yet), another possibility is that ALAC, using its
liaison status with the g-council, bring up the issue of SOI (CoI) with the
g-council itself. The g-council could then send the issue to the SCI, ignore
it, or find some other approach. Alternatively, ALAC could request an issues
report on the subject of SOI/CoI in GNSO policy making etc.

One thing the GNSO should probably avoid, especially during this time of
ICANN introspection concerning conflicts of interest, is ignoring the issue.

But I agree we should handle this within the rules established by our
charter.

avri


Krista Papac <Krista.Papac at ausregistry.com> wrote:

>My initial reaction is we should stick with what's in the Charter and 
>take requests from the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO 
>Council.
>
>Krista Papac
>General Manager, Policy & Industry Affairs AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd
>Email:
>krista.papac at ausregistry.com<mailto:krista.papac at ausregistry.com>
>Web: www.ausregistry.com
>
>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, June 20, 2012 1:55 AM
>To: AAikman at lrlaw.com; marika.konings at icann.org; avri at acm.org
>Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
>Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
>
>The charter reads:
><<For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI expects 
>to receive detailed input from the group affected by the 
>process/operational change concerned. Such requests can be made by 
>either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council.>>
>
>Request from individuals is not included.
>
>
>
>Best regards
>Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>________________________________
>Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com]
>Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Juni 2012 18:20
>An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich;
>marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>;
>avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>
>Cc:
>gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
>Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Does the 
>charter not define where the issues come from?  I would think it would 
>have to be limited by the charter.
>Anne
>
>[cid:image001.gif at 01CD4EB4.19BB2F70]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 
>Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700 One South Church Avenue * Tucson, 
>Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725 
>AAikman at LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman at LRLaw.com> * 
>www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman>
>P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information 
>intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
>If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the 
>agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are 
>hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying 
>of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication was 
>received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the 
>original message.
>
>
>________________________________
>From:
>owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-s
>c 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: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:18 AM
>To: marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>;
>avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>
>Cc:
>gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
>Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Personally my 
>first reaction would be: we should handle it practically and with 
>flexibility. Don't start amending the rules unless it is imperative.
>Flexibility could mean that the SCI
>- for a certain period of time (eg 1 year) monitors how many issues are 
>raised by individuals/groups not covered by the charter. In case it 
>exceeds a certain volume of requests (depending on the workload) the 
>SCI may strictly return to the rules as written and not accept further 
>requests from outside
>- for the a.m. period of time the SCI may discuss all issues raised and 
>make recommendations/suggestions re the issues in scope
>- re Evan's SOI related issue I recall - if I'm right - that he was 
>questioning the sense of some of the points asked for in the SOI. I 
>think we should first find out whether his issue was more ALAC specific 
>than relevant to the GNSO
>
>What do others mean?
>
>
>Best regards
>Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>________________________________
>Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org]
>Gesendet: Montag, 18. Juni 2012 14:47
>An: Avri Doria; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
>Betreff: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Hi Wolf, Avri,
>
>Under AOB, you might also want to cover the update to the GNSO Council 
>which is scheduled for Prague. In addition to getting clarification on 
>who should be responsible for putting out SCI recommendations for 
>public comments (also of relevance in relation to the item on consensus 
>items), there is also this issue with regard to who may raise issues 
>with the SCI. As you may recall, Evan Leibovitch raised a suggestion 
>with regard to the SOI. There may be other questions / suggestions that 
>individuals may make in the future relating to GNSO Improvements 
>topics. However, the SCI charter says 'requests can be made by either 
>the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council'. Should 
>individual requests be directed to the GNSO Council for referral, or 
>should there be another mechanism? It might be good to get 
>clarification on this as well so it can be made clear to those that 
>have proposals / questions.
>
>With best regards,
>
>Marika
>
>From: "KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>"
><KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>>
>To:
>"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
>>>
>Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
>
>All:
>
>this is the suggested agenda for the SCI call on Monday June 18, 13:00
>UTC:
>
>- Roll call
>- Statement of Interests
>- Approval of the agenda
>- Background information (and suggested solutions) on
>        - Deferral of Motions
>        - Proxy Voting Procedure
>        - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP
>- Consensus items: GNSO Council Voting Results Table, Consent Agenda
>- AOB: next meeting, F2F in Prague?
>
>
>Best regards
>Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>
>For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to 
>www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>.
>Phoenix (602)262-5311
>
>
>
>Reno (775)823-2900
>
>Tucson (520)622-2090
>
>
>
>Albuquerque (505)764-5400
>
>Las Vegas (702)949-8200
>
>
>
>Silicon Valley (650)391-1380
>
>
>This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity 
>to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the 
>intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering 
>the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 
>dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly 
>prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please 
>notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by 
>return E-Mail or by telephone.
>
>In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you 
>that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not 
>intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer 
>for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the 
>taxpayer.




----------------------
For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to
www.lewisandroca.com.

Phoenix (602)262-5311                           Reno (775)823-2900
Tucson (520)622-2090                            Albuquerque (505)764-5400
Las Vegas (702)949-8200                     Silicon Valley (650)391-1380

  This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message
to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.
  In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you
that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended
or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the
purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer






From avri at acm.org  Thu Jun 21 16:45:03 2012
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:45:03 +0200
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
In-Reply-To: <818F3E640D474B50889E69E0E82765C4@ron>
References: <818F3E640D474B50889E69E0E82765C4@ron>
Message-ID: <81a4c163-5902-4d65-9a0b-ee036024c669@email.android.com>


I think that it becomes a question for the g-council, becasue I think the language is rather clear.
Might as well get it resooolved before we have a SG/C request/issue to deal with.

I originally thought it was as Mary and Ron indicate,  but went back to the language to make sure.
That was when I discovered I was wrong.  
Or at least I think I discovered that I was wrong,
Though perhaps I am wrong in thinking I was wrong.

So at least one thing I know for, at some point on this discussion, I am wrong - either before or now.
Good thing I don't mind being wrong.

avri


Ron Andruff <randruff at rnapartners.com> wrote:

>
>Dear All,
>
>I'm in agreement with Mary on this one.  As noted in my previous email
>regarding the slides that W-U has prepared, the SCI has been
>established to
>smooth out those circumstances where the recommended policy/process
>needs
>some further refinement to be effective in practice.  Therefore it
>should
>not matter from which part of the community the request comes - other
>than
>from individuals - for the SCI to review an implementation process, in
>my
>view.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>RA
>
>Ronald N. Andruff
>
>President
>
> 
>
>RNA Partners, Inc.
>
>220 Fifth Avenue
>
>New York, New York 10001
>
>+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11
>
> 
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
>[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of
>Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu
>Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 9:48 AM
>To: AAikman at lrlaw.com
>Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; KnobenW at telekom.de
>Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
>
>
>Actually, my recollection/impression was that when the SCI charter was
>drafted the phrase was intended to refer to SGs and Cs as well. Can
>staff or
>someone with a better memory than I recall one way or the other?
>
>Sent from a mobile device; please excuse brevity and any grammatical or
>typographical errors.
>
>"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrlaw.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>I think that "a group chartered by the GNSO" must refer to a working
>group
>or other team with an adopted GNSO charter.  It does not appear to me
>on the
>surface that this phrase refers to a constituency.  I doubt SCI wants
>to
>become involved in taking direct requests from constituencies rather
>than
>from the GNSO directly or from working groups chartered by the GNSO
>which
>are composed of members from more than one constituency and/or
>stakeholder
>group.
>Anne
>
>
>Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
>Of Counsel
>Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700
>One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428
>*
>Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman at LRLaw.com * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P
>Please
>consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
>intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
>If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
>agent
>responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
>notified
>that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this
>communication is prohibited.  If this communication was received in
>error,
>please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>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, June 20, 2012 9:10 AM
>To: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
>Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
>
>
>I think the initiative through ALAC-Alan (council liaison)-GNSO council
>would be what is covered by the rules.
>
>
>Best regards
>Wolf-Ulrich
>
>-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
>Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
>[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri
>Doria
>Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Juni 2012 16:33
>An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
>Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
>
>
>Hi,
>
>Assuming none of the SG/Cs wish to take up the issue as their own (I
>have
>not consulted with mine yet), another possibility is that ALAC, using
>its
>liaison status with the g-council, bring up the issue of SOI (CoI) with
>the
>g-council itself. The g-council could then send the issue to the SCI,
>ignore
>it, or find some other approach. Alternatively, ALAC could request an
>issues
>report on the subject of SOI/CoI in GNSO policy making etc.
>
>One thing the GNSO should probably avoid, especially during this time
>of
>ICANN introspection concerning conflicts of interest, is ignoring the
>issue.
>
>But I agree we should handle this within the rules established by our
>charter.
>
>avri
>
>
>Krista Papac <Krista.Papac at ausregistry.com> wrote:
>
>>My initial reaction is we should stick with what's in the Charter and 
>>take requests from the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO 
>>Council.
>>
>>Krista Papac
>>General Manager, Policy & Industry Affairs AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd
>>Email:
>>krista.papac at ausregistry.com<mailto:krista.papac at ausregistry.com>
>>Web: www.ausregistry.com
>>
>>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, June 20, 2012 1:55 AM
>>To: AAikman at lrlaw.com; marika.konings at icann.org; avri at acm.org
>>Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
>>Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
>>
>>The charter reads:
>><<For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI
>expects 
>>to receive detailed input from the group affected by the 
>>process/operational change concerned. Such requests can be made by 
>>either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council.>>
>>
>>Request from individuals is not included.
>>
>>
>>
>>Best regards
>>Wolf-Ulrich
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>>Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com]
>>Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Juni 2012 18:20
>>An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich;
>>marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>;
>>avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>
>>Cc:
>>gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
>>Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Does the 
>>charter not define where the issues come from?  I would think it would
>
>>have to be limited by the charter.
>>Anne
>>
>>[cid:image001.gif at 01CD4EB4.19BB2F70]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 
>>Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700 One South Church Avenue * Tucson, 
>>Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725 
>>AAikman at LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman at LRLaw.com> * 
>>www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman>
>>P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>>This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information 
>>intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
>>If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the 
>>agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are 
>>hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
>copying 
>>of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication was 
>>received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the 
>>original message.
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>>From:
>>owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-s
>>c 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: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:18 AM
>>To: marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>;
>>avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>
>>Cc:
>>gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
>>Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Personally my 
>>first reaction would be: we should handle it practically and with 
>>flexibility. Don't start amending the rules unless it is imperative.
>>Flexibility could mean that the SCI
>>- for a certain period of time (eg 1 year) monitors how many issues
>are 
>>raised by individuals/groups not covered by the charter. In case it 
>>exceeds a certain volume of requests (depending on the workload) the 
>>SCI may strictly return to the rules as written and not accept further
>
>>requests from outside
>>- for the a.m. period of time the SCI may discuss all issues raised
>and 
>>make recommendations/suggestions re the issues in scope
>>- re Evan's SOI related issue I recall - if I'm right - that he was 
>>questioning the sense of some of the points asked for in the SOI. I 
>>think we should first find out whether his issue was more ALAC
>specific 
>>than relevant to the GNSO
>>
>>What do others mean?
>>
>>
>>Best regards
>>Wolf-Ulrich
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>>Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org]
>>Gesendet: Montag, 18. Juni 2012 14:47
>>An: Avri Doria; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
>>Betreff: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Hi Wolf, Avri,
>>
>>Under AOB, you might also want to cover the update to the GNSO Council
>
>>which is scheduled for Prague. In addition to getting clarification on
>
>>who should be responsible for putting out SCI recommendations for 
>>public comments (also of relevance in relation to the item on
>consensus 
>>items), there is also this issue with regard to who may raise issues 
>>with the SCI. As you may recall, Evan Leibovitch raised a suggestion 
>>with regard to the SOI. There may be other questions / suggestions
>that 
>>individuals may make in the future relating to GNSO Improvements 
>>topics. However, the SCI charter says 'requests can be made by either 
>>the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council'. Should 
>>individual requests be directed to the GNSO Council for referral, or 
>>should there be another mechanism? It might be good to get 
>>clarification on this as well so it can be made clear to those that 
>>have proposals / questions.
>>
>>With best regards,
>>
>>Marika
>>
>>From: "KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>"
>><KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>>
>>To:
>>"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
>>>>
>>Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
>>
>>All:
>>
>>this is the suggested agenda for the SCI call on Monday June 18, 13:00
>>UTC:
>>
>>- Roll call
>>- Statement of Interests
>>- Approval of the agenda
>>- Background information (and suggested solutions) on
>>        - Deferral of Motions
>>        - Proxy Voting Procedure
>>        - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP
>>- Consensus items: GNSO Council Voting Results Table, Consent Agenda
>>- AOB: next meeting, F2F in Prague?
>>
>>
>>Best regards
>>Wolf-Ulrich
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>>
>>For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to 
>>www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>.
>>Phoenix (602)262-5311
>>
>>
>>
>>Reno (775)823-2900
>>
>>Tucson (520)622-2090
>>
>>
>>
>>Albuquerque (505)764-5400
>>
>>Las Vegas (702)949-8200
>>
>>
>>
>>Silicon Valley (650)391-1380
>>
>>
>>This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity 
>>to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the 
>>intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for
>delivering 
>>the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
>any 
>>dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly 
>>prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please 
>>notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by 
>>return E-Mail or by telephone.
>>
>>In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise
>you 
>>that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not 
>>intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer
>
>>for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the 
>>taxpayer.
>
>
>
>
>----------------------
>For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to
>www.lewisandroca.com.
>
>Phoenix (602)262-5311                           Reno (775)823-2900
>Tucson (520)622-2090                            Albuquerque
>(505)764-5400
>Las Vegas (702)949-8200                     Silicon Valley
>(650)391-1380
>
>This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity
>to
>which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the
>intended
>recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the
>message
>to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
>dissemination,
>distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you
>have
>received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
>replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.
>In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you
>that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not
>intended
>or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the
>purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer



From KnobenW at telekom.de  Thu Jun 21 20:49:27 2012
From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de)
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:49:27 +0200
Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report
In-Reply-To: <380E37960B514A15ACD75BEB00EEC026@ron>
References: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596EAB708D@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
 <380E37960B514A15ACD75BEB00EEC026@ron>
Message-ID: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596EB41879@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>

Ron, I agree. The slide could be misunderstood due to my imprecise wording. From my point of view it's up to the council to forward these documents to public comment.
The question is rather if the documents at all should be posted by the council for public comment.

Is the following version agreed?


 Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich


________________________________
Von: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2012 18:00
An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report

The slides capture a good summary of our work to date, in my view, Wolf-Ulrich - with one exception.  The second to last slide creates an issue that could, and should be avoided at this time.

The question as to whether the SCI should put our work product out to public comment (or send back to GNSO) seems to over-complicate the purpose of a Standing Committee. The SCI role, as I understand it, is to knock off any rough edges of processes that, in practice, expose implementation issues.  Therefore, it is neither NEW policy nor process; rather our work is simply an effort to ensure that all of the gears fit cleanly into the chain that drives ICANN.

Until the SCI has discussed this in more detail and taken a decision on the matter there is no reason to bring it up to anyone outside of the SCI, in my view.  For this reason I urge you to remove this slide from the presentation.

Thank you for your consideration.

Kind regards,

RA

Ronald N. Andruff
President

RNA Partners, Inc.
220 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10001
+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11



________________________________
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, June 20, 2012 2:48 PM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report

All,

attached is the draft report to the council on Saturday morning. Please feel free to comment/amend.
I'd like to send it to Glen by tomorrow 19:00 UTC for posting.

Best regards
Wolf-

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120621/bbf7149e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SCI Presentation - Updated - 23 June 2012_council.ppt
Type: application/vnd.ms-powerpoint
Size: 1010176 bytes
Desc: SCI Presentation - Updated - 23 June 2012_council.ppt
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120621/bbf7149e/SCIPresentation-Updated-23June2012_council.ppt>

From KnobenW at telekom.de  Thu Jun 21 20:55:43 2012
From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de)
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:55:43 +0200
Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
In-Reply-To: <81a4c163-5902-4d65-9a0b-ee036024c669@email.android.com>
References: <818F3E640D474B50889E69E0E82765C4@ron>
 <81a4c163-5902-4d65-9a0b-ee036024c669@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596EB4187A@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>


We should follow-up on this with agenda item 6 on Sunday


Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich

-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2012 18:45
An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda


I think that it becomes a question for the g-council, becasue I think the language is rather clear.
Might as well get it resooolved before we have a SG/C request/issue to deal with.

I originally thought it was as Mary and Ron indicate,  but went back to the language to make sure.
That was when I discovered I was wrong.
Or at least I think I discovered that I was wrong,
Though perhaps I am wrong in thinking I was wrong.

So at least one thing I know for, at some point on this discussion, I am wrong - either before or now.
Good thing I don't mind being wrong.

avri


Ron Andruff <randruff at rnapartners.com> wrote:

>
>Dear All,
>
>I'm in agreement with Mary on this one.  As noted in my previous email
>regarding the slides that W-U has prepared, the SCI has been
>established to
>smooth out those circumstances where the recommended policy/process
>needs
>some further refinement to be effective in practice.  Therefore it
>should
>not matter from which part of the community the request comes - other
>than
>from individuals - for the SCI to review an implementation process, in
>my
>view.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>RA
>
>Ronald N. Andruff
>
>President
>
>
>
>RNA Partners, Inc.
>
>220 Fifth Avenue
>
>New York, New York 10001
>
>+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
>[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of
>Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu
>Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 9:48 AM
>To: AAikman at lrlaw.com
>Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; KnobenW at telekom.de
>Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
>
>
>Actually, my recollection/impression was that when the SCI charter was
>drafted the phrase was intended to refer to SGs and Cs as well. Can
>staff or
>someone with a better memory than I recall one way or the other?
>
>Sent from a mobile device; please excuse brevity and any grammatical or
>typographical errors.
>
>"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrlaw.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>I think that "a group chartered by the GNSO" must refer to a working
>group
>or other team with an adopted GNSO charter.  It does not appear to me
>on the
>surface that this phrase refers to a constituency.  I doubt SCI wants
>to
>become involved in taking direct requests from constituencies rather
>than
>from the GNSO directly or from working groups chartered by the GNSO
>which
>are composed of members from more than one constituency and/or
>stakeholder
>group.
>Anne
>
>
>Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
>Of Counsel
>Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700
>One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428
>*
>Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman at LRLaw.com * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P
>Please
>consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
>intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
>If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
>agent
>responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
>notified
>that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this
>communication is prohibited.  If this communication was received in
>error,
>please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>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, June 20, 2012 9:10 AM
>To: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
>Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
>
>
>I think the initiative through ALAC-Alan (council liaison)-GNSO council
>would be what is covered by the rules.
>
>
>Best regards
>Wolf-Ulrich
>
>-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
>Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
>[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri
>Doria
>Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Juni 2012 16:33
>An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
>Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
>
>
>Hi,
>
>Assuming none of the SG/Cs wish to take up the issue as their own (I
>have
>not consulted with mine yet), another possibility is that ALAC, using
>its
>liaison status with the g-council, bring up the issue of SOI (CoI) with
>the
>g-council itself. The g-council could then send the issue to the SCI,
>ignore
>it, or find some other approach. Alternatively, ALAC could request an
>issues
>report on the subject of SOI/CoI in GNSO policy making etc.
>
>One thing the GNSO should probably avoid, especially during this time
>of
>ICANN introspection concerning conflicts of interest, is ignoring the
>issue.
>
>But I agree we should handle this within the rules established by our
>charter.
>
>avri
>
>
>Krista Papac <Krista.Papac at ausregistry.com> wrote:
>
>>My initial reaction is we should stick with what's in the Charter and
>>take requests from the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO
>>Council.
>>
>>Krista Papac
>>General Manager, Policy & Industry Affairs AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd
>>Email:
>>krista.papac at ausregistry.com<mailto:krista.papac at ausregistry.com>
>>Web: www.ausregistry.com
>>
>>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, June 20, 2012 1:55 AM
>>To: AAikman at lrlaw.com; marika.konings at icann.org; avri at acm.org
>>Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
>>Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
>>
>>The charter reads:
>><<For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI
>expects
>>to receive detailed input from the group affected by the
>>process/operational change concerned. Such requests can be made by
>>either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council.>>
>>
>>Request from individuals is not included.
>>
>>
>>
>>Best regards
>>Wolf-Ulrich
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>>Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com]
>>Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Juni 2012 18:20
>>An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich;
>>marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>;
>>avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>
>>Cc:
>>gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
>>Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Does the
>>charter not define where the issues come from?  I would think it would
>
>>have to be limited by the charter.
>>Anne
>>
>>[cid:image001.gif at 01CD4EB4.19BB2F70]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel
>>Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700 One South Church Avenue * Tucson,
>>Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725
>>AAikman at LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman at LRLaw.com> *
>>www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman>
>>P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>>This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
>>intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
>>If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
>>agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
>>hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
>copying
>>of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication was
>>received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the
>>original message.
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>>From:
>>owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-s
>>c 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: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:18 AM
>>To: marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>;
>>avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>
>>Cc:
>>gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
>>Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Personally my
>>first reaction would be: we should handle it practically and with
>>flexibility. Don't start amending the rules unless it is imperative.
>>Flexibility could mean that the SCI
>>- for a certain period of time (eg 1 year) monitors how many issues
>are
>>raised by individuals/groups not covered by the charter. In case it
>>exceeds a certain volume of requests (depending on the workload) the
>>SCI may strictly return to the rules as written and not accept further
>
>>requests from outside
>>- for the a.m. period of time the SCI may discuss all issues raised
>and
>>make recommendations/suggestions re the issues in scope
>>- re Evan's SOI related issue I recall - if I'm right - that he was
>>questioning the sense of some of the points asked for in the SOI. I
>>think we should first find out whether his issue was more ALAC
>specific
>>than relevant to the GNSO
>>
>>What do others mean?
>>
>>
>>Best regards
>>Wolf-Ulrich
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>>Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org]
>>Gesendet: Montag, 18. Juni 2012 14:47
>>An: Avri Doria; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
>>Betreff: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Hi Wolf, Avri,
>>
>>Under AOB, you might also want to cover the update to the GNSO Council
>
>>which is scheduled for Prague. In addition to getting clarification on
>
>>who should be responsible for putting out SCI recommendations for
>>public comments (also of relevance in relation to the item on
>consensus
>>items), there is also this issue with regard to who may raise issues
>>with the SCI. As you may recall, Evan Leibovitch raised a suggestion
>>with regard to the SOI. There may be other questions / suggestions
>that
>>individuals may make in the future relating to GNSO Improvements
>>topics. However, the SCI charter says 'requests can be made by either
>>the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council'. Should
>>individual requests be directed to the GNSO Council for referral, or
>>should there be another mechanism? It might be good to get
>>clarification on this as well so it can be made clear to those that
>>have proposals / questions.
>>
>>With best regards,
>>
>>Marika
>>
>>From: "KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>"
>><KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>>
>>To:
>>"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
>>>>
>>Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
>>
>>All:
>>
>>this is the suggested agenda for the SCI call on Monday June 18, 13:00
>>UTC:
>>
>>- Roll call
>>- Statement of Interests
>>- Approval of the agenda
>>- Background information (and suggested solutions) on
>>        - Deferral of Motions
>>        - Proxy Voting Procedure
>>        - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP
>>- Consensus items: GNSO Council Voting Results Table, Consent Agenda
>>- AOB: next meeting, F2F in Prague?
>>
>>
>>Best regards
>>Wolf-Ulrich
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>>
>>For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to
>>www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>.
>>Phoenix (602)262-5311
>>
>>
>>
>>Reno (775)823-2900
>>
>>Tucson (520)622-2090
>>
>>
>>
>>Albuquerque (505)764-5400
>>
>>Las Vegas (702)949-8200
>>
>>
>>
>>Silicon Valley (650)391-1380
>>
>>
>>This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity
>>to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the
>>intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for
>delivering
>>the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
>any
>>dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly
>>prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
>>notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by
>>return E-Mail or by telephone.
>>
>>In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise
>you
>>that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not
>>intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer
>
>>for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the
>>taxpayer.
>
>
>
>
>----------------------
>For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to
>www.lewisandroca.com.
>
>Phoenix (602)262-5311                           Reno (775)823-2900
>Tucson (520)622-2090                            Albuquerque
>(505)764-5400
>Las Vegas (702)949-8200                     Silicon Valley
>(650)391-1380
>
>This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity
>to
>which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the
>intended
>recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the
>message
>to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
>dissemination,
>distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you
>have
>received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
>replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.
>In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you
>that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not
>intended
>or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the
>purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer




From AAikman at lrlaw.com  Thu Jun 21 22:29:00 2012
From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne)
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:29:00 +0000
Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
In-Reply-To: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596EB4187A@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
References: <818F3E640D474B50889E69E0E82765C4@ron>
 <81a4c163-5902-4d65-9a0b-ee036024c669@email.android.com>,<D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596EB4187A@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95531908A@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com>

It makes sense to accept input (as opposed to items to be reviewed) from constituencies. If you accept issues to be reviewed from all comers, you will not be ale to control the workload at all. It will be unmanageable and you will spend alot of time trying to decide whether it is even in scope for SCI. My two cents is that requests from all comers is not consistent with the charter. Anne


Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)

-----Original Message-----
From: KnobenW at telekom.de [KnobenW at telekom.de]
Received: Thursday, 21 Jun 2012, 1:56pm
To: avri at acm.org [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]
Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda


We should follow-up on this with agenda item 6 on Sunday


Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich

-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2012 18:45
An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda


I think that it becomes a question for the g-council, becasue I think the language is rather clear.
Might as well get it resooolved before we have a SG/C request/issue to deal with.

I originally thought it was as Mary and Ron indicate,  but went back to the language to make sure.
That was when I discovered I was wrong.
Or at least I think I discovered that I was wrong,
Though perhaps I am wrong in thinking I was wrong.

So at least one thing I know for, at some point on this discussion, I am wrong - either before or now.
Good thing I don't mind being wrong.

avri


Ron Andruff <randruff at rnapartners.com> wrote:

>
>Dear All,
>
>I'm in agreement with Mary on this one.  As noted in my previous email
>regarding the slides that W-U has prepared, the SCI has been
>established to
>smooth out those circumstances where the recommended policy/process
>needs
>some further refinement to be effective in practice.  Therefore it
>should
>not matter from which part of the community the request comes - other
>than
>from individuals - for the SCI to review an implementation process, in
>my
>view.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>RA
>
>Ronald N. Andruff
>
>President
>
>
>
>RNA Partners, Inc.
>
>220 Fifth Avenue
>
>New York, New York 10001
>
>+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
>[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of
>Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu
>Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 9:48 AM
>To: AAikman at lrlaw.com
>Cc: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; KnobenW at telekom.de
>Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
>
>
>Actually, my recollection/impression was that when the SCI charter was
>drafted the phrase was intended to refer to SGs and Cs as well. Can
>staff or
>someone with a better memory than I recall one way or the other?
>
>Sent from a mobile device; please excuse brevity and any grammatical or
>typographical errors.
>
>"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrlaw.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>I think that "a group chartered by the GNSO" must refer to a working
>group
>or other team with an adopted GNSO charter.  It does not appear to me
>on the
>surface that this phrase refers to a constituency.  I doubt SCI wants
>to
>become involved in taking direct requests from constituencies rather
>than
>from the GNSO directly or from working groups chartered by the GNSO
>which
>are composed of members from more than one constituency and/or
>stakeholder
>group.
>Anne
>
>
>Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
>Of Counsel
>Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700
>One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428
>*
>Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman at LRLaw.com * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman> P
>Please
>consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
>intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
>If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
>agent
>responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
>notified
>that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this
>communication is prohibited.  If this communication was received in
>error,
>please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>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, June 20, 2012 9:10 AM
>To: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
>Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
>
>
>I think the initiative through ALAC-Alan (council liaison)-GNSO council
>would be what is covered by the rules.
>
>
>Best regards
>Wolf-Ulrich
>
>-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
>Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
>[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri
>Doria
>Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Juni 2012 16:33
>An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
>Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
>
>
>Hi,
>
>Assuming none of the SG/Cs wish to take up the issue as their own (I
>have
>not consulted with mine yet), another possibility is that ALAC, using
>its
>liaison status with the g-council, bring up the issue of SOI (CoI) with
>the
>g-council itself. The g-council could then send the issue to the SCI,
>ignore
>it, or find some other approach. Alternatively, ALAC could request an
>issues
>report on the subject of SOI/CoI in GNSO policy making etc.
>
>One thing the GNSO should probably avoid, especially during this time
>of
>ICANN introspection concerning conflicts of interest, is ignoring the
>issue.
>
>But I agree we should handle this within the rules established by our
>charter.
>
>avri
>
>
>Krista Papac <Krista.Papac at ausregistry.com> wrote:
>
>>My initial reaction is we should stick with what's in the Charter and
>>take requests from the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO
>>Council.
>>
>>Krista Papac
>>General Manager, Policy & Industry Affairs AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd
>>Email:
>>krista.papac at ausregistry.com<mailto:krista.papac at ausregistry.com>
>>Web: www.ausregistry.com<http://www.ausregistry.com>
>>
>>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, June 20, 2012 1:55 AM
>>To: AAikman at lrlaw.com; marika.konings at icann.org; avri at acm.org
>>Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
>>Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
>>
>>The charter reads:
>><<For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI
>expects
>>to receive detailed input from the group affected by the
>>process/operational change concerned. Such requests can be made by
>>either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council.>>
>>
>>Request from individuals is not included.
>>
>>
>>
>>Best regards
>>Wolf-Ulrich
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>>Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com]
>>Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Juni 2012 18:20
>>An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich;
>>marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>;
>>avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>
>>Cc:
>>gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
>>Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Does the
>>charter not define where the issues come from?  I would think it would
>
>>have to be limited by the charter.
>>Anne
>>
>>[cid:image001.gif at 01CD4EB4.19BB2F70]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel
>>Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700 One South Church Avenue * Tucson,
>>Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725
>>AAikman at LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman at LRLaw.com> *
>>www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman<http://www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman>>
>>P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>>This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
>>intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
>>If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
>>agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
>>hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
>copying
>>of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication was
>>received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the
>>original message.
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>>From:
>>owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-s
>>c 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: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:18 AM
>>To: marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>;
>>avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>
>>Cc:
>>gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
>>Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Personally my
>>first reaction would be: we should handle it practically and with
>>flexibility. Don't start amending the rules unless it is imperative.
>>Flexibility could mean that the SCI
>>- for a certain period of time (eg 1 year) monitors how many issues
>are
>>raised by individuals/groups not covered by the charter. In case it
>>exceeds a certain volume of requests (depending on the workload) the
>>SCI may strictly return to the rules as written and not accept further
>
>>requests from outside
>>- for the a.m. period of time the SCI may discuss all issues raised
>and
>>make recommendations/suggestions re the issues in scope
>>- re Evan's SOI related issue I recall - if I'm right - that he was
>>questioning the sense of some of the points asked for in the SOI. I
>>think we should first find out whether his issue was more ALAC
>specific
>>than relevant to the GNSO
>>
>>What do others mean?
>>
>>
>>Best regards
>>Wolf-Ulrich
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>>Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org]
>>Gesendet: Montag, 18. Juni 2012 14:47
>>An: Avri Doria; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
>>Betreff: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Hi Wolf, Avri,
>>
>>Under AOB, you might also want to cover the update to the GNSO Council
>
>>which is scheduled for Prague. In addition to getting clarification on
>
>>who should be responsible for putting out SCI recommendations for
>>public comments (also of relevance in relation to the item on
>consensus
>>items), there is also this issue with regard to who may raise issues
>>with the SCI. As you may recall, Evan Leibovitch raised a suggestion
>>with regard to the SOI. There may be other questions / suggestions
>that
>>individuals may make in the future relating to GNSO Improvements
>>topics. However, the SCI charter says 'requests can be made by either
>>the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council'. Should
>>individual requests be directed to the GNSO Council for referral, or
>>should there be another mechanism? It might be good to get
>>clarification on this as well so it can be made clear to those that
>>have proposals / questions.
>>
>>With best regards,
>>
>>Marika
>>
>>From: "KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>"
>><KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>>
>>To:
>>"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
>>>>
>>Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
>>
>>All:
>>
>>this is the suggested agenda for the SCI call on Monday June 18, 13:00
>>UTC:
>>
>>- Roll call
>>- Statement of Interests
>>- Approval of the agenda
>>- Background information (and suggested solutions) on
>>        - Deferral of Motions
>>        - Proxy Voting Procedure
>>        - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP
>>- Consensus items: GNSO Council Voting Results Table, Consent Agenda
>>- AOB: next meeting, F2F in Prague?
>>
>>
>>Best regards
>>Wolf-Ulrich
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>>
>>For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to
>>www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/<http://www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>>.
>>Phoenix (602)262-5311
>>
>>
>>
>>Reno (775)823-2900
>>
>>Tucson (520)622-2090
>>
>>
>>
>>Albuquerque (505)764-5400
>>
>>Las Vegas (702)949-8200
>>
>>
>>
>>Silicon Valley (650)391-1380
>>
>>
>>This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity
>>to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the
>>intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for
>delivering
>>the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
>any
>>dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly
>>prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
>>notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by
>>return E-Mail or by telephone.
>>
>>In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise
>you
>>that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not
>>intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer
>
>>for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the
>>taxpayer.
>
>
>
>
>----------------------
>For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to
>www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com>.
>
>Phoenix (602)262-5311                           Reno (775)823-2900
>Tucson (520)622-2090                            Albuquerque
>(505)764-5400
>Las Vegas (702)949-8200                     Silicon Valley
>(650)391-1380
>
>This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity
>to
>which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the
>intended
>recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the
>message
>to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
>dissemination,
>distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you
>have
>received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
>replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.
>In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you
>that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not
>intended
>or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the
>purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120621/5909216f/attachment.html>

From KnobenW at telekom.de  Fri Jun 22 04:36:56 2012
From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de)
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 06:36:56 +0200
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI report
Message-ID: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596EB418A7@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>

Good morning Glen!

Would you be so kind to forward the SCI report attached to the council and post it to the agenda?

Thank you and looking forward to see you in Prague
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120622/25f27ec7/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SCI Presentation - 23 June 2012_council.ppt
Type: application/vnd.ms-powerpoint
Size: 1010176 bytes
Desc: SCI Presentation - 23 June 2012_council.ppt
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120622/25f27ec7/SCIPresentation-23June2012_council.ppt>

From Glen at icann.org  Fri Jun 22 08:25:45 2012
From: Glen at icann.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Glen_de_Saint_G=E9ry?=)
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 01:25:45 -0700
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: SCI report
In-Reply-To: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596EB418A7@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
References: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596EB418A7@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
Message-ID: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184B11F80EF6@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>

Wolf-Ulrich,

Done ! will appear on page :
http://prague44.icann.org/node/31565

Thank you.
Glen

Safe travels!

Glen de Saint G?ry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
http://gnso.icann.org

From: KnobenW at telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de]
Sent: vendredi 22 juin 2012 06:37
To: Glen de Saint G?ry
Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: SCI report

Good morning Glen!

Would you be so kind to forward the SCI report attached to the council and post it to the agenda?
Thank you and looking forward to see you in Prague
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120622/5fb3e84b/attachment.html>

From randruff at rnapartners.com  Fri Jun 22 12:45:46 2012
From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff)
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 08:45:46 -0400
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report
In-Reply-To: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596EB41879@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
Message-ID: <18BF6FE2572F40A1B8ED94AD032C436A@ron>

Wolf-Ulrich, 

 

Thanks for this revision, but it doesn't resolve the matter as I had hoped.
As I noted in my previous email:

 

The question as to whether the SCI should put our work product out to public
comment (or send back to GNSO) seems to over-complicate the purpose of a
Standing Committee. The SCI role, as I understand it, is to knock off any
rough edges of processes that, in practice, expose implementation issues.
Therefore, it is neither NEW policy nor process; rather our work is simply
an effort to ensure that all of the gears fit cleanly into the chain that
drives ICANN.

 

For clarity the slide I am asking to be deleted is #8 which states:

 

Further steps:

.          How to deal with the consensus items?

- Back to council?

- Council post it for Public Comment?

.          How to deal with items raised by individuals?

 

I do NOT believe that SCI determinations need to go back to the community
for public comment.  The ICANN community is already overwhelmed with the
number of topics that need consideration and public comments - to add yet
more to that pile is antithetical to what the SCI has been chartered to do,
IMHO.

 

For my part, I would ask you to remove slide 8 altogether so as not to open
a can of worms, which could be avoided at this point.

 

I see our guiding principal as, "What makes ICANN function more
efficiently?"  Sending items of detail that simply streamline action back -
yet again - to the community for public comment is the opposite of that.

 

My two cents.

 

RA 

 

 

Ronald N. Andruff

President

 

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10001

+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

 

  _____  

From: KnobenW at telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de] 
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 4:49 PM
To: randruff at rnapartners.com; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report

 

Ron, I agree. The slide could be misunderstood due to my imprecise wording.
>From my point of view it's up to the council to forward these documents to
public comment. 

The question is rather if the documents at all should be posted by the
council for public comment.

 

Is the following version agreed?

 

 

 Best regards 
Wolf-Ulrich 

 

 


  _____  


Von: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] 
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2012 18:00
An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report

The slides capture a good summary of our work to date, in my view,
Wolf-Ulrich - with one exception.  The second to last slide creates an issue
that could, and should be avoided at this time.

 

The question as to whether the SCI should put our work product out to public
comment (or send back to GNSO) seems to over-complicate the purpose of a
Standing Committee. The SCI role, as I understand it, is to knock off any
rough edges of processes that, in practice, expose implementation issues.
Therefore, it is neither NEW policy nor process; rather our work is simply
an effort to ensure that all of the gears fit cleanly into the chain that
drives ICANN.

 

Until the SCI has discussed this in more detail and taken a decision on the
matter there is no reason to bring it up to anyone outside of the SCI, in my
view.  For this reason I urge you to remove this slide from the
presentation.

 

Thank you for your consideration.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

President

 

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10001

+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

 

 

 


  _____  


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, June 20, 2012 2:48 PM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report

All,

 

attached is the draft report to the council on Saturday morning. Please feel
free to comment/amend.

I'd like to send it to Glen by tomorrow 19:00 UTC for posting.

 

Best regards

Wolf-

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120622/3d8a76a5/attachment.html>

From KnobenW at telekom.de  Fri Jun 22 12:58:28 2012
From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de)
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 14:58:28 +0200
Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report
In-Reply-To: <18BF6FE2572F40A1B8ED94AD032C436A@ron>
References: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596EB41879@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
 <18BF6FE2572F40A1B8ED94AD032C436A@ron>
Message-ID: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596EB41F24@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>

Thanks Ron for making it clear.



Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich



________________________________
Von: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com]
Gesendet: Freitag, 22. Juni 2012 14:46
An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report

Wolf-Ulrich,

Thanks for this revision, but it doesn't resolve the matter as I had hoped.  As I noted in my previous email:

The question as to whether the SCI should put our work product out to public comment (or send back to GNSO) seems to over-complicate the purpose of a Standing Committee. The SCI role, as I understand it, is to knock off any rough edges of processes that, in practice, expose implementation issues.  Therefore, it is neither NEW policy nor process; rather our work is simply an effort to ensure that all of the gears fit cleanly into the chain that drives ICANN.

For clarity the slide I am asking to be deleted is #8 which states:

Further steps:
*          How to deal with the consensus items?
- Back to council?
- Council post it for Public Comment?
*          How to deal with items raised by individuals?

I do NOT believe that SCI determinations need to go back to the community for public comment.  The ICANN community is already overwhelmed with the number of topics that need consideration and public comments - to add yet more to that pile is antithetical to what the SCI has been chartered to do, IMHO.

For my part, I would ask you to remove slide 8 altogether so as not to open a can of worms, which could be avoided at this point.

I see our guiding principal as, "What makes ICANN function more efficiently?"  Sending items of detail that simply streamline action back - yet again - to the community for public comment is the opposite of that.

My two cents...

RA


Ronald N. Andruff
President

RNA Partners, Inc.
220 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10001
+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

________________________________
From: KnobenW at telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de]
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 4:49 PM
To: randruff at rnapartners.com; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report

Ron, I agree. The slide could be misunderstood due to my imprecise wording. From my point of view it's up to the council to forward these documents to public comment.
The question is rather if the documents at all should be posted by the council for public comment.

Is the following version agreed?


 Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich


________________________________
Von: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2012 18:00
An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report
The slides capture a good summary of our work to date, in my view, Wolf-Ulrich - with one exception.  The second to last slide creates an issue that could, and should be avoided at this time.

The question as to whether the SCI should put our work product out to public comment (or send back to GNSO) seems to over-complicate the purpose of a Standing Committee. The SCI role, as I understand it, is to knock off any rough edges of processes that, in practice, expose implementation issues.  Therefore, it is neither NEW policy nor process; rather our work is simply an effort to ensure that all of the gears fit cleanly into the chain that drives ICANN.

Until the SCI has discussed this in more detail and taken a decision on the matter there is no reason to bring it up to anyone outside of the SCI, in my view.  For this reason I urge you to remove this slide from the presentation.

Thank you for your consideration.

Kind regards,

RA

Ronald N. Andruff
President

RNA Partners, Inc.
220 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10001
+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11



________________________________
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, June 20, 2012 2:48 PM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report
All,

attached is the draft report to the council on Saturday morning. Please feel free to comment/amend.
I'd like to send it to Glen by tomorrow 19:00 UTC for posting.

Best regards
Wolf-

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120622/28671e16/attachment.html>

From AAikman at lrlaw.com  Fri Jun 22 18:14:17 2012
From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne)
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 18:14:17 +0000
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report
In-Reply-To: <18BF6FE2572F40A1B8ED94AD032C436A@ron>
References: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596EB41879@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
 <18BF6FE2572F40A1B8ED94AD032C436A@ron>
Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95531AA33@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com>

I agree with Ron and believe the GNSO should determine whether or not it wants public comment after it receives recommendations from the SCI.

[cid:530451318 at 22062012-2FBB]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700
One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
Tel (520) 629-4428 ? Fax (520) 879-4725
AAikman at LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman at LRLaw.com> ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman>
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.


________________________________
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 5:46 AM
To: KnobenW at telekom.de; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report

Wolf-Ulrich,

Thanks for this revision, but it doesn?t resolve the matter as I had hoped.  As I noted in my previous email:

The question as to whether the SCI should put our work product out to public comment (or send back to GNSO) seems to over-complicate the purpose of a Standing Committee. The SCI role, as I understand it, is to knock off any rough edges of processes that, in practice, expose implementation issues.  Therefore, it is neither NEW policy nor process; rather our work is simply an effort to ensure that all of the gears fit cleanly into the chain that drives ICANN.

For clarity the slide I am asking to be deleted is #8 which states:

Further steps:
?          How to deal with the consensus items?
- Back to council?
- Council post it for Public Comment?
?          How to deal with items raised by individuals?

I do NOT believe that SCI determinations need to go back to the community for public comment.  The ICANN community is already overwhelmed with the number of topics that need consideration and public comments ? to add yet more to that pile is antithetical to what the SCI has been chartered to do, IMHO.

For my part, I would ask you to remove slide 8 altogether so as not to open a can of worms, which could be avoided at this point.

I see our guiding principal as, ?What makes ICANN function more efficiently??  Sending items of detail that simply streamline action back ? yet again ? to the community for public comment is the opposite of that.

My two cents?

RA


Ronald N. Andruff
President

RNA Partners, Inc.
220 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10001
+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

________________________________
From: KnobenW at telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de]
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 4:49 PM
To: randruff at rnapartners.com; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report

Ron, I agree. The slide could be misunderstood due to my imprecise wording. From my point of view it's up to the council to forward these documents to public comment.
The question is rather if the documents at all should be posted by the council for public comment.

Is the following version agreed?


 Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich


________________________________
Von: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2012 18:00
An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report
The slides capture a good summary of our work to date, in my view, Wolf-Ulrich - with one exception.  The second to last slide creates an issue that could, and should be avoided at this time.

The question as to whether the SCI should put our work product out to public comment (or send back to GNSO) seems to over-complicate the purpose of a Standing Committee. The SCI role, as I understand it, is to knock off any rough edges of processes that, in practice, expose implementation issues.  Therefore, it is neither NEW policy nor process; rather our work is simply an effort to ensure that all of the gears fit cleanly into the chain that drives ICANN.

Until the SCI has discussed this in more detail and taken a decision on the matter there is no reason to bring it up to anyone outside of the SCI, in my view.  For this reason I urge you to remove this slide from the presentation.

Thank you for your consideration.

Kind regards,

RA

Ronald N. Andruff
President

RNA Partners, Inc.
220 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10001
+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11



________________________________
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, June 20, 2012 2:48 PM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report
All,

attached is the draft report to the council on Saturday morning. Please feel free to comment/amend.
I'd like to send it to Glen by tomorrow 19:00 UTC for posting.

Best regards
Wolf-




________________________________

For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>.

Phoenix (602)262-5311           Reno (775)823-2900
Tucson (520)622-2090            Albuquerque (505)764-5400
Las Vegas (702)949-8200         Silicon Valley (650)391-1380

  This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.

  In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120622/ca8f6b4e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3225 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120622/ca8f6b4e/image001.gif>

From avri at acm.org  Fri Jun 22 20:31:37 2012
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 22:31:37 +0200
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report
In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95531AA33@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com>
References: <D9F923A733D99945931EF9A6D3436E5701596EB41879@HE111646.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <18BF6FE2572F40A1B8ED94AD032C436A@ron> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95531AA33@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com>
Message-ID: <909fbfce-2e21-43f1-bc1c-6ba3406ed892@email.android.com>


Hi,

I think I said somethng like this earlier.  But in any case, +1


avri


"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrlaw.com> wrote:

>I agree with Ron and believe the GNSO should determine whether or not
>it wants public comment after it receives recommendations from the SCI.
>
>[cid:530451318 at 22062012-2FBB]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
>Of Counsel
>Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700
>One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
>Tel (520) 629-4428 ? Fax (520) 879-4725
>AAikman at LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman at LRLaw.com> ?
>www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman>
>P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
>intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
>If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
>agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
>hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
>copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
>was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the
>original message.
>
>
>________________________________
>From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
>[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff
>Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 5:46 AM
>To: KnobenW at telekom.de; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
>Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report
>
>Wolf-Ulrich,
>
>Thanks for this revision, but it doesn?t resolve the matter as I had
>hoped.  As I noted in my previous email:
>
>The question as to whether the SCI should put our work product out to
>public comment (or send back to GNSO) seems to over-complicate the
>purpose of a Standing Committee. The SCI role, as I understand it, is
>to knock off any rough edges of processes that, in practice, expose
>implementation issues.  Therefore, it is neither NEW policy nor
>process; rather our work is simply an effort to ensure that all of the
>gears fit cleanly into the chain that drives ICANN.
>
>For clarity the slide I am asking to be deleted is #8 which states:
>
>Further steps:
>?          How to deal with the consensus items?
>- Back to council?
>- Council post it for Public Comment?
>?          How to deal with items raised by individuals?
>
>I do NOT believe that SCI determinations need to go back to the
>community for public comment.  The ICANN community is already
>overwhelmed with the number of topics that need consideration and
>public comments ? to add yet more to that pile is antithetical to what
>the SCI has been chartered to do, IMHO.
>
>For my part, I would ask you to remove slide 8 altogether so as not to
>open a can of worms, which could be avoided at this point.
>
>I see our guiding principal as, ?What makes ICANN function more
>efficiently??  Sending items of detail that simply streamline action
>back ? yet again ? to the community for public comment is the opposite
>of that.
>
>My two cents?
>
>RA
>
>
>Ronald N. Andruff
>President
>
>RNA Partners, Inc.
>220 Fifth Avenue
>New York, New York 10001
>+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11
>
>________________________________
>From: KnobenW at telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de]
>Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 4:49 PM
>To: randruff at rnapartners.com; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
>Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report
>
>Ron, I agree. The slide could be misunderstood due to my imprecise
>wording. From my point of view it's up to the council to forward these
>documents to public comment.
>The question is rather if the documents at all should be posted by the
>council for public comment.
>
>Is the following version agreed?
>
>
> Best regards
>Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>________________________________
>Von: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com]
>Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2012 18:00
>An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
>Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report
>The slides capture a good summary of our work to date, in my view,
>Wolf-Ulrich - with one exception.  The second to last slide creates an
>issue that could, and should be avoided at this time.
>
>The question as to whether the SCI should put our work product out to
>public comment (or send back to GNSO) seems to over-complicate the
>purpose of a Standing Committee. The SCI role, as I understand it, is
>to knock off any rough edges of processes that, in practice, expose
>implementation issues.  Therefore, it is neither NEW policy nor
>process; rather our work is simply an effort to ensure that all of the
>gears fit cleanly into the chain that drives ICANN.
>
>Until the SCI has discussed this in more detail and taken a decision on
>the matter there is no reason to bring it up to anyone outside of the
>SCI, in my view.  For this reason I urge you to remove this slide from
>the presentation.
>
>Thank you for your consideration.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>RA
>
>Ronald N. Andruff
>President
>
>RNA Partners, Inc.
>220 Fifth Avenue
>New York, New York 10001
>+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11
>
>
>
>________________________________
>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, June 20, 2012 2:48 PM
>To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
>Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report
>All,
>
>attached is the draft report to the council on Saturday morning. Please
>feel free to comment/amend.
>I'd like to send it to Glen by tomorrow 19:00 UTC for posting.
>
>Best regards
>Wolf-
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>
>For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to
>www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>.
>
>Phoenix (602)262-5311           Reno (775)823-2900
>Tucson (520)622-2090            Albuquerque (505)764-5400
>Las Vegas (702)949-8200         Silicon Valley (650)391-1380
>
>This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity
>to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the
>intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering
>the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
>dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly
>prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
>notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by
>return E-Mail or by telephone.
>
>In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you
>that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not
>intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer
>for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the
>taxpayer.



From jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com  Sun Jun 24 07:25:25 2012
From: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com (Jonathan Robinson)
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 09:25:25 +0200
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Deferrals - Key questions / logic points in order to try to achieve consensus
Message-ID: <00a901cd51da$86e8b350$94ba19f0$@ipracon.com>

Key Questions / Issues

 

.         Do we permit 1st deferrals? 

.         Do we require a reason / motivation for deferrals?

.         If a reason is required / provided, is it subject to any test?

.         Are 1st deferrals automatic or do we subject them to some form of
vote / test?

.         Can a deferral be overruled?  If so, what is the condition / test
to overrule?

.         Do we permit 2nd deferrals?

.         If we permit 2nd deferrals, do we subject them to some form of
vote / test?

.         Do we permit 3rd deferrals?

 

My Answers

 

.         Do we permit 1st deferrals?
Yes

.         Do we require a reason / motivation for deferrals?
Yes

.         If a reason is required / provided, is it subject to any test?
No, we trust the provider of the reason

.         Are 1st deferrals automatically granted or do we subject them to
some form of vote / test?
Yes, they are automatically granted

.         Can a 1st deferral be overruled?  If so, what is the condition /
test to overrule?
Yes, subject to a request from a councillor and a [supermajority] vote of
the council to deny

.         Do we permit 2nd deferrals?
Yes

.         If we permit 2nd deferrals, do we subject them to some form of
vote / test?
Yes, 2nd deferral requires a request from a councillor and a [supermajority]
vote of the council to permit

.         Do we permit 3rd deferrals?
No.  A motion should be voted on or withdrawn at this stage.
Note: I use "withdrawn" not "tabled" as tabled in my English, tabled means
put forward / submitted not withdrawn

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120624/62e551e5/attachment.html>

From jscottevans at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 24 07:36:22 2012
From: jscottevans at yahoo.com (J. Scott Evans)
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 00:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Deferrals - Key questions / logic points in order to try to achieve consensus
Message-ID: <1340523382.79771.BPMail_high_noncarrier@web160406.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>



Thanks for this Jonathan.


------------------------------
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 12:25 AM PDT Jonathan Robinson wrote:

>Key Questions / Issues
>
> 
>
>.         Do we permit 1st deferrals? 
>
>.         Do we require a reason / motivation for deferrals?
>
>.         If a reason is required / provided, is it subject to any test?
>
>.         Are 1st deferrals automatic or do we subject them to some form of
>vote / test?
>
>.         Can a deferral be overruled?  If so, what is the condition / test
>to overrule?
>
>.         Do we permit 2nd deferrals?
>
>.         If we permit 2nd deferrals, do we subject them to some form of
>vote / test?
>
>.         Do we permit 3rd deferrals?
>
> 
>
>My Answers
>
> 
>
>.         Do we permit 1st deferrals?
>Yes
>
>.         Do we require a reason / motivation for deferrals?
>Yes
>
>.         If a reason is required / provided, is it subject to any test?
>No, we trust the provider of the reason
>
>.         Are 1st deferrals automatically granted or do we subject them to
>some form of vote / test?
>Yes, they are automatically granted
>
>.         Can a 1st deferral be overruled?  If so, what is the condition /
>test to overrule?
>Yes, subject to a request from a councillor and a [supermajority] vote of
>the council to deny
>
>.         Do we permit 2nd deferrals?
>Yes
>
>.         If we permit 2nd deferrals, do we subject them to some form of
>vote / test?
>Yes, 2nd deferral requires a request from a councillor and a [supermajority]
>vote of the council to permit
>
>.         Do we permit 3rd deferrals?
>No.  A motion should be voted on or withdrawn at this stage.
>Note: I use "withdrawn" not "tabled" as tabled in my English, tabled means
>put forward / submitted not withdrawn
>



From carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com  Sun Jun 24 07:53:29 2012
From: carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com (carlos dionisio aguirre)
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 07:53:29 +0000
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Deferrals - Key questions / logic
 points in order to try to achieve consensus
In-Reply-To: <00a901cd51da$86e8b350$94ba19f0$@ipracon.com>
References: <00a901cd51da$86e8b350$94ba19f0$@ipracon.com>
Message-ID: <SNT131-W41FF3122A8752F6ADCA6EEB4E20@phx.gbl>


My understanding on that.

Key Questions / Issues ?         Do we permit 1st deferrals? ?         Do we require a reason / motivation for deferrals??         If a reason is required / provided, is it subject to any test??         Are 1st deferrals automatic or do we subject them to some form of vote / test??         Can a deferral be overruled?  If so, what is the condition / test to overrule??         Do we permit 2nd deferrals??         If we permit 2nd deferrals, do we subject them to some form of vote / test??         Do we permit 3rd deferrals? My Answers ?         Do we permit 1st deferrals?
Yes?         Do we require a reason / motivation for deferrals?
NO at the first deferral motion. (the reason could be anything) but limited to certain time (I think no more than 21 days)
?         If a reason is required / provided, is it subject to any test?
No, we trust the provider of the reason?         Are 1st deferrals automatically granted or do we subject them to some form of vote / test?
Yes, they are automatically granted?         Can a 1st deferral be overruled?  If so, what is the condition / test to overrule?
Yes, subject to a request from a councillor and a [supermajority] vote of the council to deny - only in cases where the urgency alleged, can be probed
?         Do we permit 2nd deferrals?
Yes?         If we permit 2nd deferrals, do we subject them to some form of vote / test?
Yes, 2nd deferral requires a request from a councillor and a [supermajority] vote of the council to permit - in this case Councillor who raise deferral motion must show to the council  or a) motion had sustantively changed, or b) information for a vote was/is not available, or c) information came after 8 days motion posting.
?         Do we permit 3rd deferrals?
No.  A motion should be voted on or withdrawn at this stage.
Note: I use ?withdrawn? not ?tabled? as tabled in my English, tabled means put forward / submitted not withdrawn

Carlos Dionisio Aguirre
NCA GNSO Council - ICANN
former ALAC member by LACRALO
Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios
Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -
*54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423
http://ar.ageiadensi.org 


From: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Deferrals - Key questions / logic points in order to try to achieve consensus
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 09:25:25 +0200

Key Questions / Issues ?         Do we permit 1st deferrals? ?         Do we require a reason / motivation for deferrals??         If a reason is required / provided, is it subject to any test??         Are 1st deferrals automatic or do we subject them to some form of vote / test??         Can a deferral be overruled?  If so, what is the condition / test to overrule??         Do we permit 2nd deferrals??         If we permit 2nd deferrals, do we subject them to some form of vote / test??         Do we permit 3rd deferrals? My Answers ?         Do we permit 1st deferrals?
Yes?         Do we require a reason / motivation for deferrals?
Yes?         If a reason is required / provided, is it subject to any test?
No, we trust the provider of the reason?         Are 1st deferrals automatically granted or do we subject them to some form of vote / test?
Yes, they are automatically granted?         Can a 1st deferral be overruled?  If so, what is the condition / test to overrule?
Yes, subject to a request from a councillor and a [supermajority] vote of the council to deny?         Do we permit 2nd deferrals?
Yes?         If we permit 2nd deferrals, do we subject them to some form of vote / test?
Yes, 2nd deferral requires a request from a councillor and a [supermajority] vote of the council to permit?         Do we permit 3rd deferrals?
No.  A motion should be voted on or withdrawn at this stage.
Note: I use ?withdrawn? not ?tabled? as tabled in my English, tabled means put forward / submitted not withdrawn 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120624/4a6125ca/attachment.html>

From Glen at icann.org  Tue Jun 26 08:19:42 2012
From: Glen at icann.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Glen_de_Saint_G=E9ry?=)
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 01:19:42 -0700
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO Working session transcripts
Message-ID: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184B11F812EB@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>



Dear All,

The transcripts for the GNSO working sessions on Saturday and Sunday are posted on page
http://gnso.icann.org/en/calendar#jun
in lines
23 June GNSO Working session Prague<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/GNSO+Working+Session+Prague+Saturday+2012-06-23> 09:00 - 18:00 local time

 *   Motions/Workload Discussion<http://prague44.icann.org/meetings/prague2012/transcript-motions-workload-23jun12-en.pdf>
 *   SCI Update<http://prague44.icann.org/meetings/prague2012/transcript-sci-update-23jun12-en.pdf>
 *   ICANN Board/GAC Prep Call<http://prague44.icann.org/meetings/prague2012/transcript-board-gac-prep-23jun12-en.pdf>
 *   IOC/RC/IGO PDP<http://prague44.icann.org/meetings/prague2012/transcript-ioc-rc-igo-23jun12-en.pdf>
 *   RAA Negotiations PDP<http://prague44.icann.org/meetings/prague2012/transcript-raa-negotiations-23jun12-en.pdf>
 *   Consumer Metrics<http://prague44.icann.org/meetings/prague2012/transcript-cci-23jun12-en.pdf>
  24 June GNSO Working session Prague<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/GNSO+Working+Session+Prague+Sunday+2012-06-24> 09:00 - 18:00 local time

 *   Outreach<http://prague44.icann.org/meetings/prague2012/transcript-outreach-24jun12-en.pdf>
 *   IDN Variant TLDs Program Update<http://prague44.icann.org/meetings/prague2012/transcript-idn-variant-tlds-24jun12-en.pdf>
 *   Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings<http://prague44.icann.org/meetings/prague2012/transcript-locking-domain-name-24jun12-en.pdf>
 *   IRTP C Update<http://prague44.icann.org/meetings/prague2012/transcript-irtp-c-update-24jun12-en.pdf>
 *   New gTLDs Issues<http://prague44.icann.org/meetings/prague2012/transcript-new-gtld-issues-24jun12-en.pdf>
 *   GAC/CCNSO Discussion<http://prague44.icann.org/meetings/prague2012/transcript-gac-ccnso-discussion-24jun12-en.pdf>
 *   SSAC Updates Discussion<http://prague44.icann.org/meetings/prague2012/transcript-ssac-update-24jun12-en.pdf>
 *   SCI Update<http://prague44.icann.org/meetings/prague2012/transcript-sci-update-24jun12-en.pdf>
Further transcripts will be posted as they arrive.
Thank you.
Kind regards,

Glen

Glen de Saint G?ry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
http://gnso.icann.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120626/2b8391af/attachment.html>