AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda

[KnobenW at telekom.de]

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

-----Ursprüngliche 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