From KnobenW at telekom.de Thu Oct 4 16:38:43 2012 From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 18:38:43 +0200 Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] In-Reply-To: <062701cd9cc8$fd1fe2d0$f75fa870$@goto.jobs> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95541682B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <062701cd9cc8$fd1fe2d0$f75fa870$@goto.jobs> Message-ID: Thanks Marika! Any further comments? If not, I'll take this as basis for perhaps a concluding discussion on the subject in Toronto. See the agenda for the SCI meeting in Toronto as well as the status table. The suggested text resp. options for the various topics are as follows. Re "Raising an issue" Ron has already opted for #1. Deferral of motions - Proposed Response The SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date in those situations where a formal process for a deferral is not specifically provided (for example, certain deferrals are foreseen as part of the GNSO PDP, see http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16dec11-en.pdf). The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situation that may occur with regard to this informal practice. =============== Proposed Language to address suspending a PDP (modification in bold of section 15 of the PDP Manual) The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend* a PDP prior to the publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of termination or suspension. The following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a premature termination or suspension of a PDP: 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and resources being dedicated to the PDP; 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the initiation of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary, or warranting a suspension; or 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for participation, the work of the PDP Team is significantly impaired and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack of volunteer participation. * Suspension is a time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. [to be included as a footnote]^ =============== Raising an issue, three possible approaches were identified during the last meeting: 1. Maintain status quo - which means only the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council can request an item to be reviewed by the SCI. Possibly consider communicating to other SO/ACs / individuals, that if there are issues they would like to see reviewed by the SCI, that they will need to channel these via the GNSO Council and/or a group chartered by the GNSO Council. 2. Add the possibility for other ICANN SO/ACs to make a direct request to the SCI - this would require a change to the SCI Charter and would need GNSO Council approval. 3. Add the possibility for any chartered group to make a direct request to the SCI - this would require a change to the SCI Charter and would need GNSO Council approval. Some also noted that a definition of 'chartered' would be needed as it is not clear whether SO/ACs are chartered. Members are encouraged to share their views on these three options and/or identify any other options that should be considered to address this issue ahead of the next meeting. 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 Ray Fassett Gesendet: Donnerstag, 27. September 2012 17:59 An: 'Aikman-Scalese, Anne'; 'Marika Konings'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: For your review - proposed response deferral of motions I agree with Anne on both counts: It is well drafted and clear and will also defer to J. Scott as to substance. Ray From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:18 AM To: 'Marika Konings'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: For your review - proposed response deferral of motions Thanks Marika. I'll defer to J. Scott as to substance, but wanted to remark I believe this is well-drafted and clear. Unfortunately I cannot make the call today due to a meeting at the McCarthy Institute. I'll listen to the reccording later to stay abreast. Thank you, Anne [cid:541500116 at 04102012-08BC]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. ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 12:59 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For your review - proposed response deferral of motions Dear All, In relation to the issue of deferral of motions, please find below the latest version of the proposed response to the GNSO Council for review / approval on today's SCI meeting. With best regards, Marika Deferral of motions - Proposed Response The SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date in those situations where a formal process for a deferral is not specifically provided (for example, certain deferrals are foreseen as part of the GNSO PDP, see http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16dec11-en.pdf). The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situation that may occur with regard to this informal practice. ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCI agenda.doc Type: application/msword Size: 22016 bytes Desc: SCI agenda.doc URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCI Status List_20121003.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 28160 bytes Desc: SCI Status List_20121003.xls URL: From jscottevans at yahoo.com Thu Oct 4 23:56:34 2012 From: jscottevans at yahoo.com (J. Scott Evans) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 16:56:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95541682B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <062701cd9cc8$fd1fe2d0$f75fa870$@goto.jobs> Message-ID: <1349394994.76827.YahooMailNeo@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> I am fine with this. ? j. scott evans - ?head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com ________________________________ From: "KnobenW at telekom.de" To: ray at goto.jobs; AAikman at lrlaw.com; marika.konings at icann.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Sent: Thursday, October 4, 2012 9:38 AM Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Thanks Marika! ? Any further comments? If not, I'll take this as basis for perhaps a concluding discussion on the subject in Toronto. ? See?the agenda for the SCI meeting in Toronto as well as the status table. ? The suggested text resp. options for the various topics are as follows. Re "Raising an issue" Ron has already opted for #1. ? Deferral of motions ? Proposed Response ? The SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date?in those situations where a formal process for a deferral is not specifically provided (for example, certain deferrals are foreseen as part of the GNSO PDP, see?http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16dec11-en.pdf).?The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. ?For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time.? However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situation that may occur with regard to this informal practice.?? ? ? ?=============== Proposed Language to address suspending a PDP (modification in bold of section 15 of the PDP Manual) The GNSO Council may terminate?or suspend*?a PDP prior to the publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of termination?or suspension. The following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a premature termination?or suspension?of a PDP: 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and resources being dedicated to the PDP; 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the initiation of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot,?or?no longer necessary,?or warranting a suspension; or 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for participation, the work of the PDP Team is significantly impaired and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack of volunteer participation. * Suspension is?a time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. [to be included as a footnote]^ ? ? ? =============== Raising an issue, three possible approaches were identified during the last meeting: 1. Maintain status quo?- which means only the?GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council can request an item to be reviewed by the SCI. Possibly consider communicating to other SO/ACs / individuals, that if there are issues they would like to see reviewed by the SCI, that they will need to channel these via the GNSO Council and/or a group chartered by the GNSO Council. 2. Add the possibility for other ICANN SO/ACs to make a direct request to the SCI ? this would require a change to the SCI Charter and would need GNSO Council approval. 3. Add the possibility for any chartered group to make a direct request to the SCI? this would require a change to the SCI Charter and would need GNSO Council approval. Some also noted that a definition of 'chartered' would be needed as it is not clear whether SO/ACs are chartered. Members are encouraged to share their views on these three options and/or identify any other options that should be considered to address this issue ahead of the next meeting. ? ? 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 Ray Fassett >Gesendet: Donnerstag, 27. September 2012 17:59 >An: 'Aikman-Scalese, Anne'; 'Marika Konings'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: For your review - proposed response deferral of motions > > >I agree with Anne on both counts:? It is well drafted and clear and will also defer to J. Scott as to substance. >? >Ray >? >From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne >Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:18 AM >To: 'Marika Konings'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: For your review - proposed response deferral of motions >? >Thanks Marika.? I'll defer to J. Scott as to substance, but wanted to remark I believe this is well-drafted and clear.? Unfortunately I cannot make the call today due to a meeting at the McCarthy Institute.? I'll listen?to the reccording later to stay abreast.? Thank you, 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. >? >? > >________________________________ > >From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings >Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 12:59 AM >To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For your review - proposed response deferral of motions >Dear All, >? >In relation to the issue of deferral of motions, please find below the latest version of the proposed response to the GNSO Council for review / approval on today's SCI meeting. >? >With best regards, >? >Marika >? >Deferral of motions ? Proposed Response >? >The SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date?in those situations where a formal process for a deferral is not specifically provided (for example, certain deferrals are foreseen as part of the GNSO PDP, see?http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16dec11-en.pdf).?The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. ?For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time.? However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situation that may occur with regard to this informal practice. ? >? > >________________________________ > >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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From jscottevans at yahoo.com Sat Oct 13 13:50:20 2012 From: jscottevans at yahoo.com (J. Scott Evans) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 06:50:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised Deferral of Motions Language Message-ID: <1350136220.69114.YahooMailNeo@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Per our discussions today, I have set out below the revised language for the response to the GNSO council on the deferral of motions issue. ?Please let us have your thoughts, if any. ?I have highlighted the revision requested by Avri Doria: Deferral of motions ? Proposed Response The SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date?in those situations where a formal process for a deferral is not specifically provided (for example, certain deferrals are foreseen as part of the GNSO PDP, see?http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16dec11-en.pdf).?The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. ?For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time.? However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative or the negative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situation that may occur with regard to this informal practice. ? ? j. scott evans - ?head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marika.konings at icann.org Sun Oct 14 15:02:57 2012 From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 08:02:57 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items from the SCI meeting Message-ID: Dear All, As discussed on yesterday's SCI meeting: * Deferral of motions: Please review the updated response on deferral of motions circulated by J. Scott (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/msg00402.html) * Suspension of a PDP: The latest version of the proposed update to the PDP Manual to address suspension of a PDP will be put out for public comment by staff shortly. * WG Survey: Please review the latest version of the WG Survey (see attached) * Raising an issue: there appears to be support for option nr 1 ? maintain status quo (see http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/msg00390.html for the different options). If there are members of the SCI that support a different option, please share your views with the mailing list. * Next meeting: The next meeting will be scheduled for Thursday 1 November at 19.00 UTC. With best regards, Marika -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft Survey for GNSO Working Groups - Updated 11 July 2012.doc Type: application/msword Size: 45056 bytes Desc: Draft Survey for GNSO Working Groups - Updated 11 July 2012.doc URL: From jscottevans at yahoo.com Sun Oct 14 15:14:52 2012 From: jscottevans at yahoo.com (J. Scott Evans) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 08:14:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items from the SCI meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1350227692.88687.YahooMailNeo@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> The only revision to the deferral language was the addition of the language "or negative" at the end of third sentence. ?I had put the change in red text, but did not realize it would not show up on the list. ? j. scott evans - ?head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com ________________________________ From: Marika Konings To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2012 8:02 AM Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items from the SCI meeting Dear All, As discussed on yesterday's SCI meeting: * Deferral of motions: Please review the updated response on deferral of motions circulated by J. Scott (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/msg00402.html) * Suspension of a PDP: The latest version of the proposed update to the PDP Manual to address suspension of a PDP will be put out for public comment by staff shortly. * WG Survey: Please review the latest version of the WG Survey (see attached) * Raising an issue: there appears to be support for option nr 1 ? maintain status quo (see?http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/msg00390.html?for the different options). If there are members of the SCI that support a different option, please share your views with the mailing list.? * Next meeting: The next meeting will be scheduled for Thursday 1 November at 19.00 UTC. With best regards, Marika -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marika.konings at icann.org Tue Oct 23 08:35:04 2012 From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 01:35:04 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FW: ICANN News Alert -- Proposed Modification of GNSO PDP Manual to Address the Suspension of a PDP In-Reply-To: <0.1.71.92B.1CDB0A4B8A863B2.0@drone073.ral.icpbounce.com> Message-ID: For your information, the public comment forum on the proposed modification of the GNSO PDP Manual to address the suspension of a PDP has now been opened (see below). With best regards, Marika From: ICANN News Alert Date: Tuesday 23 October 2012 00:29 To: Marika Konings Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Proposed Modification of GNSO PDP Manual to Address the Suspension of a PDP ICANN News Alert News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-22oct12-en.htm Proposed Modification of GNSO PDP Manual to Address the Suspension of a PDP 22 October 2012 Forum Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 22 October 2012 Categories/Tags: Policy Processes; Reviews/Improvements Purpose (Brief): The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) is recommending a modification of the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) Manual, which is an integral part of the GNSO Operating Procedures, to address the possible suspension of a PDP. As required by the ICANN Bylaws, a public comment forum is hereby initiated on the proposed changes. Public Comment Box Link: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gnso-pdp-manual-22oct12-en.htm This message was sent to marika.konings at icann.org from: ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email Marketing by Manage Your Subscription -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5045 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jscottevans at yahoo.com Tue Oct 23 15:28:11 2012 From: jscottevans at yahoo.com (J. Scott Evans) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 08:28:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FW: ICANN News Alert -- Proposed Modification of GNSO PDP Manual to Address the Suspension of a PDP In-Reply-To: References: <0.1.71.92B.1CDB0A4B8A863B2.0@drone073.ral.icpbounce.com> Message-ID: <1351006091.84040.YahooMailNeo@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Thanks for the information Marika. ? j. scott evans - ?head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com ________________________________ From: Marika Konings To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 1:35 AM Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FW: ICANN News Alert -- Proposed Modification of GNSO PDP Manual to Address the Suspension of a PDP For your information, the public comment forum on the proposed modification of the GNSO PDP Manual to address the suspension of a PDP has now been opened (see below). With best regards, Marika From: ICANN News Alert Date: Tuesday 23 October 2012 00:29 To: Marika Konings Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Proposed Modification of GNSO PDP Manual to Address the Suspension of a PDP ICANN News Alert News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-22oct12-en.htm ________________________________ Proposed Modification of GNSO PDP Manual to Address the Suspension of a PDP 22 October 2012 ? Forum Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 22 October 2012 Categories/Tags: Policy Processes; Reviews/Improvements Purpose (Brief): The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) is recommending a modification of the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) Manual, which is an integral part of the GNSO Operating Procedures, to address the possible suspension of a PDP. As required by the ICANN Bylaws, a public comment forum is hereby initiated on the proposed changes. Public Comment Box Link: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gnso-pdp-manual-22oct12-en.htm ? This message was sent to marika.konings at icann.org from: ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email Marketing by Manage Your Subscription -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Wed Oct 31 16:30:27 2012 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:30:27 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Reminder re: Action items from the SCI meeting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear All, This is a reminder of the action items as discussed at the SCI meeting on 13 October: * Deferral of motions: Please review the updated response on deferral of motions circulated by J. Scott (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/msg00402.html). Note from J.Scott: "The only revision to the deferral language was the addition of the language "or negative" at the end of third sentence. I had put the change in red text, but did not realize it would not show up on the list." * Suspension of a PDP: The proposed update to the PDP Manual to address suspension of a PDP is out for public comment. Staff will provide an update at our meeting on 01 Nov. * WG Survey: Please review the latest version of the WG Survey (see attached) * Raising an issue: there appears to be support for option nr 1 ? maintain status quo (see http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/msg00390.html for the different options). If there are members of the SCI that support a different option, please share your views with the mailing list. * Next meeting: The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday 1 November at 19.00 UTC. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft Survey for GNSO Working Groups - Updated 11 July 2012.doc Type: application/msword Size: 45056 bytes Desc: Draft Survey for GNSO Working Groups - Updated 11 July 2012.doc URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Wed Oct 31 16:39:52 2012 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 12:39:52 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Reminder re: Action items from the SCI meeting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear all, On the matters noted below, I support J Scott's revision on Deferral of motions and support the recommendation to go with Option #1, on the matter of Raising an Issue. Unfortunately, I will be flying during the call tomorrow, so I send my apologies herewith. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. _____ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 12:30 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Reminder re: Action items from the SCI meeting Dear All, This is a reminder of the action items as discussed at the SCI meeting on 13 October: * Deferral of motions: Please review the updated response on deferral of motions circulated by J. Scott (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/msg00402.html). Note from J.Scott: "The only revision to the deferral language was the addition of the language "or negative" at the end of third sentence. I had put the change in red text, but did not realize it would not show up on the list." * Suspension of a PDP: The proposed update to the PDP Manual to address suspension of a PDP is out for public comment. Staff will provide an update at our meeting on 01 Nov. * WG Survey: Please review the latest version of the WG Survey (see attached) * Raising an issue: there appears to be support for option nr 1 - maintain status quo (see http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/msg00390.html for the different options). If there are members of the SCI that support a different option, please share your views with the mailing list. * Next meeting: The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday 1 November at 19.00 UTC. With best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From KnobenW at telekom.de Wed Oct 31 21:53:02 2012 From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 22:53:02 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting Message-ID: Dear SCI colleagues, the meeting tomorrow shall have the following agenda: 1. Roll call 2. Statement of Interests 3. Approval of the agenda 4. Chair and Vice Chair election 5. Deferral of Motions - updated response circulated by J. Scott 6. Update on Public Comments on Changes to the PDP Manual for Suspension of a PDP (Julie Hedlund) 7. Raising an issue - Seems to be support for option nr 1 - maintain status quo 8. Status update on Working Group survey 9. AOB Re chair and VC election I suggest the following process in accordance with what we've done last time: 1. Nomination of candidates from the membership 2. In case of more than 1 nominee for each position election should be held by balloting. Carlos has left the GNSO council as NCA. I'm very thankful for the contributions during his term. I'll refer to the council in order to get a replacement. Mary, what will be your status with regards to your NCUC representation after you've joined the ccNSO? Can we still count on you? Looking forward to hearing you tomorrow Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: