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

[Aikman-Scalese, Anne]

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

-----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: 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
>
>-----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 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>