[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report

Fri Jun 22 20:31:37 UTC 2012

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.