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

Krista Papac Krista.Papac at ausregistry.com
Wed Jun 20 22:08:35 UTC 2012

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


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.


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 
>Krista Papac
>General Manager, Policy & Industry Affairs AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd
>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
>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>
>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.
>[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> * 
>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.
>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>
>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
>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,
>From: "KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>"
><KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>>
>"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
>this is the suggested agenda for the SCI call on Monday June 18, 13:00
>- 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
>For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to 
>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 

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