From KnobenW at telekom.de Thu Sep 6 11:18:26 2012 From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 13:18:26 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Deferral of motions Message-ID: All, I wanted to follow-up on the level of what seemed to be a common opinion how to handle deferrals in future. Fortunately J. Scott took over to draft a text for a related SCI recommendation. To my understanding it would be helpful to describe clearly the "safety valve" you mentioned as well as using the words "courtesy" and "discretion of the chair" in the right context. I attach the related transscript part from our meeting - hoping it can be of assistance: ... J. Scott Evans: I think I can handle Avri's concern regarding codification because my suggestion is not that we state anything. I think what we would say is our recommendation is that the practice would stay as it is currently and that it be looked at by staff. And if, you know, to be raised at another time if there's abuse or something to that effect. But in our reasoning we would state that the reason we have left it the same is we believe that there is a safety valve because this is a organic process that developed as a courtesy under the discretion of the chair. Okay? And that that - there is nothing that prescribes the chair in its - in his or her discretion from denying this type of courtesy. And that can either be done at the chair's own behest or another mechanism, for example, putting it to a vote of the Council. But not to put that in some sort of rules but to put that in our reasoning to say we believe the safety valve is already there. But I think we need to clearly annunciate what that safety valve is so that a chair can say well this has been looked at and I'm going to exercise the discretion that everyone - the community has agreed that I have in this instance and I'm going to proceed as X. So that's - I'm not talking about making a rule; I'm just talking about somehow putting in there a reasoning that - picking up on Avri's point. It's in the discretion; okay well tell them that's the reason we're leaving it the way it is. Don't have it out there so people assume because I do believe St?phane believed his hands were tied and he didn't have a discretion to do anything else. And if we believe it's within his discretion then I think we need to tell the community that's what we think. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: Yes. J. Scott Evans: I don't think it has to be any heavy-handed rule. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: Thank you, J. Scott. Well I - what I've seen here right now in the chat is, well, agreement from Ray, from Ron. I think Avri is raising her hand. I would - if that is possible - and I would appreciate if you - could you write down some - in some small sentence, right, what you have said. So - and provide it on the list to us so that we can see that reasoning in written form. So - and then we have a chance, well, maybe that we can come on - oh, thank you very much - you agree. Thanks very much. Avri. Avri Doria: Yeah, the only thing I wanted to say is if we stop at this is a courtesy given at the discretion of the chair, period, I can live with that. Once we start going further and saying and she can defer it and she can do a vote or she could then I start to have issues in that we're starting to make rules. If we say in our reason this is originally a courtesy; this remains a courtesy except in PDPs at the, you know, at the discretion of the chair and just leave it at that without trying to push the chair one way or another. ... Mit freundlichen Gr??en Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Deutsche Telekom AG Service Headquarters Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Godesberger Allee 99, 53175 Bonn, Germany +49 2244 873999 (Phone) +49 2244 873955 (Fax) +49 151 1452 5867 (Mobile) E-Mail: knobenw at telekom.de www.telekom.com Life is for sharing. Deutsche Telekom AG Supervisory Board: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Lehner (Chairman) Board of Management: Ren? Obermann (Chairman), Reinhard Clemens, Niek Jan van Damme, Timotheus H?ttges, Dr. Thomas Kremer, Claudia Nemat, Prof. Dr. Marion Schick Commercial register: Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 6794 Registered office: Bonn WEEE reg. no. DE50478376 Big changes start small - conserve resources by not printing every e-mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marika.konings at icann.org Thu Sep 6 13:10:45 2012 From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 06:10:45 -0700 Subject: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposed language to address suspending a PDP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear All, As discussed during the last meeting, please find below what I think is the last proposal with regard to suspending a PDP. With best regards, Marika From: Marika Konings > Date: Tuesday 24 July 2012 04:00 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposed language to address suspending a PDP Dear All, Following on from the last meeting, please find hereby the proposed language to be added to the PDP Manual to address suspending a PDP after initiation: 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. This would be a modification of the current language of section 15 of the PDP manual (modified language in bold). Looking forward to receiving your feedback. With best regards, Marika -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From KnobenW at telekom.de Thu Sep 6 14:35:13 2012 From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 16:35:13 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: SCI In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Marika, I just share it with the team. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. September 2012 14:34 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: Re: SCI Hi Wolf, Please see the transcript below. With best regards, Marika Julie Hedlund:Hi Marika I just Julie Hedlund:joined Marika Konings:Hi Julie Marika Konings:Analysis is up now. avri:The opinion that says Avri can be marked as NCSG. J. Scott Evans:I think there has already been an issue, the problem was there was no formal process for considering the issue Ron A:@ Avri: ltd to one to ensure no stonewalling Ron A:BC supports status quo Ron A:Agree with argument; but safeguard the principle Ron A:My point Avri! J. Scott Evans:If we leave it as is, then I think we need be very specific in our reasoning by pointing out that we believe that the Chair has the discretion to deny. That needs to be clearly ennunciated. Ron A:What happens if the chair is biased for or against? Ron A:bias by way of affiliation J. Scott Evans:Good question Anne. J. Scott Evans:I thought Stephane clearly stated that he could NOT deny request because he had no process for doing so. Hence, theis issue coming to the SCIU avri:Except in PDPD's where it has been enshrined, it is just a priactice and practice belongs to the chair. J. Scott Evans:SCI avri:PDP's not PDPD's Anne Aikman-Scalese:Chair cannot choose without authority to do so in governance documents, I think. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Principle should not depend on which particular individual holds the position of Chair of the GNSO. Authority to override a deferral should be clear if it is needed. J. Scott Evans:If you want to keep it as is, I think that we need to clearly state that the Chair has discretion to deny or to put to a vote. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with J Scott J. Scott Evans:In other words, clearly state that the request does not HAVE to be automatically granted Ron A:@ J +1 Anne Aikman-Scalese:Agree with J. Scott and Ray but we should cite to the basis for this opinion by SCI. Ron A:8 days for larger institutions that make up the BC or ISCP need more than 8 days Avri Ray Fassett - RySG:Anne-perhaps can cite the rationale as the checks balances that exist in procedures for the chair to always act neutral Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but overriding a deferral may not be seen as "neutral". Ray Fassett - RySG:in that situation, there are procedures for others to bring that complaint, I believe Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but do we really want to put the GNSO Chair in that position in relation to complaints? avri:i disagree with coffying what the chair can and can't do. avri:coffying - codifying. Ron A:@ Anne: we are only giving recommendations back to council at teh SCI Ron A:SCI recommendations avri:each chair gets to interpret on her own. Ron A:Let the Chair's authority be challenged by test of the principle avri:and if she is deemd to have done wrong by the g-council, she can be removed or not re-elected. Otherwise we will need 10 volumes of g-council rules. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with ron and avri Ron A:@ J - fully agree with your summation avri:The working on this goes too far for me. I do not think we should be offereing specific alternatives. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with j scott Ron A:The reasoning doesn't havet to go to far into the weeds Anne Aikman-Scalese:J. Scott, Are you saying the deferral practice itself is discretionary with the Chair so the denial of a deferral is also discretionary? J. Scott Evans:Anne: Yes, picking up on Avri's point, the deferral practice is courtesy that has historically been extended at the discretion of the Chair. J. Scott Evans:And that there shoujld be no assumption that that disrection must be exercised in all cases. Ron A:Good bye all J. Scott Evans:or extended I should say Ray Fassett - RySG:thanks Wolf Wolf Knoben:Thanks all From: "KnobenW at telekom.de" > Date: Thursday 6 September 2012 05:53 To: Marika Konings > Subject: SCI Hi Marika, Could you please provide us with the chat of the last SCI meeting? Thanks and Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Thu Sep 6 18:13:43 2012 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 11:13:43 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Meeting Invitation / Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting/ Thursday 13 September at 1900 UTC Message-ID: Dear All, The Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting teleconference is scheduled on Thursday 13 September 2012 at 1900 UTC. 12:00 PDT, 15:00 EDT, 20:00 London, 21:00 CET For other places see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=SCI+Meeting&iso=20120913T19 Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/standcommdraft/ Dial-in details are below. If you require a dial-out, please email me your preferred contact number. Thank you Kind regards Nathalie ____________________________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: SCI For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. ____________________________________________________________________________ Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA* 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA 000-800-852-1268 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 *Access to your conference call will be either of the numbers listed, dependent on the participants' local telecom provider. Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. ---------------------------- Nathalie Peregrine GNSO Secretariat Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Thu Sep 6 20:37:31 2012 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 20:37:31 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Meeting Invitation / Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting/ Thursday 13 September at 1900 UTC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9553E62F3@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Thanks Nathalie. I have a speaking engagement that conflicts and will not be able to participate. Catch you all next call... Anne [cid:854443620 at 06092012-01D6]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 Nathalie Peregrine Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 11:14 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Meeting Invitation / Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting/ Thursday 13 September at 1900 UTC Dear All, The Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting teleconference is scheduled on Thursday 13 September 2012 at 1900 UTC. 12:00 PDT, 15:00 EDT, 20:00 London, 21:00 CET For other places see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=SCI+Meeting&iso=20120913T19 Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/standcommdraft/ Dial-in details are below. If you require a dial-out, please email me your preferred contact number. Thank you Kind regards Nathalie ____________________________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: SCI For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. ____________________________________________________________________________ Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA* 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA 000-800-852-1268 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 *Access to your conference call will be either of the numbers listed, dependent on the participants' local telecom provider. Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. ---------------------------- Nathalie Peregrine GNSO Secretariat Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) ________________________________ 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 nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Thu Sep 6 21:28:29 2012 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:28:29 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Meeting Invitation / Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting/ Thursday 13 September at 1900 UTC In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9553E62F3@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9553E62F3@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Dear Anne, Thank you for this, apology noted. Kind regards Nathalie From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com] Sent: jeudi 6 septembre 2012 22:38 To: Nathalie Peregrine; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org Subject: RE: Meeting Invitation / Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting/ Thursday 13 September at 1900 UTC Thanks Nathalie. I have a speaking engagement that conflicts and will not be able to participate. Catch you all next call... Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01CD8C87.526421E0]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 Nathalie Peregrine Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 11:14 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Meeting Invitation / Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting/ Thursday 13 September at 1900 UTC Dear All, The Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting teleconference is scheduled on Thursday 13 September 2012 at 1900 UTC. 12:00 PDT, 15:00 EDT, 20:00 London, 21:00 CET For other places see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=SCI+Meeting&iso=20120913T19 Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/standcommdraft/ Dial-in details are below. If you require a dial-out, please email me your preferred contact number. Thank you Kind regards Nathalie ____________________________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: SCI For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. ____________________________________________________________________________ Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA* 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA 000-800-852-1268 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 *Access to your conference call will be either of the numbers listed, dependent on the participants' local telecom provider. Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. ---------------------------- Nathalie Peregrine GNSO Secretariat Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) ________________________________ 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 Fri Sep 7 23:05:03 2012 From: jscottevans at yahoo.com (J. Scott Evans) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 16:05:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: SCI In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1347059103.85281.YahooMailNeo@web161006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Dear All: My proposal was for us to simply state our decision and the explain our rationale for the decision to the GNSO. ?Here is some proposed text: 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. ?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. . . .? We should probably add some language about the neutral position of the GNSO Chair and reference the provision that currently exist for dealing with a perception that the Chair is not acting in a neutral manner. ?I just didn't have all those references handy, but I want to get this out to the list in time for everyone to consider before the next call. J. Scott ? j. scott evans - ?head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com ________________________________ From: "KnobenW at telekom.de" To: marika.konings at icann.org Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:35 AM Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: SCI Thanks Marika, I just share it with the team. ? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ? >________________________________ > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] >Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. September 2012 14:34 >An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich >Betreff: Re: SCI > > >Hi Wolf, > > >Please see the transcript below. > > >With best regards, > > >Marika > > >Julie Hedlund:Hi Marika I just >??Julie Hedlund:joined >??Marika Konings:Hi Julie >??Marika Konings:Analysis is up now. >??avri:The opinion that says Avri can be marked as NCSG. >??J. Scott Evans:I think there has already been an issue, the problem was there was no formal process for considering the issue >??Ron A:@ Avri: ltd to one to ensure no stonewalling >??Ron A:BC supports status quo >??Ron A:Agree with argument; but safeguard the principle >??Ron A:My point Avri! >??J. Scott Evans:If we leave it as is, then I think we need be very specific in our reasoning by pointing out that we believe that the Chair??has the discretion to deny.??That needs to be clearly ennunciated. >??Ron A:What happens if the chair is biased for or against? >??Ron A:bias by way of affiliation >??J. Scott Evans:Good question Anne. >??J. Scott Evans:I thought Stephane clearly stated that he could NOT deny request because he had no process for doing so.??Hence, theis issue coming to the??SCIU >??avri:Except in PDPD's where it has been enshrined, it is just a priactice and practice belongs to the chair. >??J. Scott Evans:SCI >??avri:PDP's not PDPD's >??Anne Aikman-Scalese:Chair cannot choose without authority to do so in governance documents, I think. >??Anne Aikman-Scalese:Principle should not depend on which particular individual holds the position of Chair of the GNSO.??Authority to override a deferral should be clear if it is needed. >??J. Scott Evans:If you want to keep it as is, I think that we need to clearly state that the Chair has discretion to deny or to put to a vote.?? >??Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with J Scott >??J. Scott Evans:In other words, clearly state that the request does not HAVE to be automatically granted >??Ron A:@ J +1 >??Anne Aikman-Scalese:Agree with J. Scott and Ray but we should cite to the basis for this opinion by SCI. >??Ron A:8 days for larger institutions that make up the BC or ISCP need more than 8 days Avri >??Ray Fassett - RySG:Anne-perhaps can cite the rationale as the checks balances that exist in procedures for the chair to always act neutral >??Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but overriding a deferral may not be seen as "neutral". >??Ray Fassett - RySG:in that situation, there are procedures for others to bring that complaint, I believe >??Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but do we really want to put the GNSO Chair in that position in relation to complaints? >??avri:i disagree with coffying what the chair can and can't do. >??avri:coffying - codifying. >??Ron A:@ Anne: we are only giving recommendations back to council at teh SCI >??Ron A:SCI recommendations >??avri:each chair gets to interpret on her own. >??Ron A:Let the Chair's authority be challenged by test of the principle >??avri:and if she is deemd to have done wrong by the g-council, she can be removed or not re-elected.??Otherwise we will need 10 volumes of g-council rules. >??Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with ron and avri >??Ron A:@ J - fully agree with your summation >??avri:The working on this goes too far for me.??I do not think we should be offereing specific alternatives. >??Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with j scott >??Ron A:The reasoning doesn't havet to go to far into the weeds >??Anne Aikman-Scalese:J. Scott, Are you saying the deferral??practice itself is discretionary with the Chair so the denial of a deferral is also discretionary? >??J. Scott Evans:Anne:??Yes, picking up on Avri's point, the deferral practice is courtesy that has historically been extended at the discretion of the Chair. >??J. Scott Evans:And that there shoujld be no assumption that that disrection must be exercised in all cases. >??Ron A:Good bye all >??J. Scott Evans:or extended I should say >??Ray Fassett - RySG:thanks Wolf >??Wolf Knoben:Thanks all > >From: "KnobenW at telekom.de" >Date: Thursday 6 September 2012 05:53 >To: Marika Konings >Subject: SCI > > > > >Hi Marika, >? >Could you please provide us with the chat of the last SCI meeting? >? >Thanks and >Best regards >Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >? >? >? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Mon Sep 10 15:11:17 2012 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 11:11:17 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: SCI In-Reply-To: <1347059103.85281.YahooMailNeo@web161006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8DB5BE2CA17F4489B43126D46358BC02@ron> Thank you for this, J. Scott. I support your way forward. 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 J. Scott Evans Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 7:05 PM To: KnobenW at telekom.de; marika.konings at icann.org Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: SCI Dear All: My proposal was for us to simply state our decision and the explain our rationale for the decision to the GNSO. Here is some proposed text: 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. 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. . . . We should probably add some language about the neutral position of the GNSO Chair and reference the provision that currently exist for dealing with a perception that the Chair is not acting in a neutral manner. I just didn't have all those references handy, but I want to get this out to the list in time for everyone to consider before the next call. J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com _____ From: "KnobenW at telekom.de" To: marika.konings at icann.org Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:35 AM Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: SCI Thanks Marika, I just share it with the team. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. September 2012 14:34 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: Re: SCI Hi Wolf, Please see the transcript below. With best regards, Marika Julie Hedlund:Hi Marika I just Julie Hedlund:joined Marika Konings:Hi Julie Marika Konings:Analysis is up now. avri:The opinion that says Avri can be marked as NCSG. J. Scott Evans:I think there has already been an issue, the problem was there was no formal process for considering the issue Ron A:@ Avri: ltd to one to ensure no stonewalling Ron A:BC supports status quo Ron A:Agree with argument; but safeguard the principle Ron A:My point Avri! J. Scott Evans:If we leave it as is, then I think we need be very specific in our reasoning by pointing out that we believe that the Chair has the discretion to deny. That needs to be clearly ennunciated. Ron A:What happens if the chair is biased for or against? Ron A:bias by way of affiliation J. Scott Evans:Good question Anne. J. Scott Evans:I thought Stephane clearly stated that he could NOT deny request because he had no process for doing so. Hence, theis issue coming to the SCIU avri:Except in PDPD's where it has been enshrined, it is just a priactice and practice belongs to the chair. J. Scott Evans:SCI avri:PDP's not PDPD's Anne Aikman-Scalese:Chair cannot choose without authority to do so in governance documents, I think. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Principle should not depend on which particular individual holds the position of Chair of the GNSO. Authority to override a deferral should be clear if it is needed. J. Scott Evans:If you want to keep it as is, I think that we need to clearly state that the Chair has discretion to deny or to put to a vote. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with J Scott J. Scott Evans:In other words, clearly state that the request does not HAVE to be automatically granted Ron A:@ J +1 Anne Aikman-Scalese:Agree with J. Scott and Ray but we should cite to the basis for this opinion by SCI. Ron A:8 days for larger institutions that make up the BC or ISCP need more than 8 days Avri Ray Fassett - RySG:Anne-perhaps can cite the rationale as the checks balances that exist in procedures for the chair to always act neutral Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but overriding a deferral may not be seen as "neutral". Ray Fassett - RySG:in that situation, there are procedures for others to bring that complaint, I believe Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but do we really want to put the GNSO Chair in that position in relation to complaints? avri:i disagree with coffying what the chair can and can't do. avri:coffying - codifying. Ron A:@ Anne: we are only giving recommendations back to council at teh SCI Ron A:SCI recommendations avri:each chair gets to interpret on her own. Ron A:Let the Chair's authority be challenged by test of the principle avri:and if she is deemd to have done wrong by the g-council, she can be removed or not re-elected. Otherwise we will need 10 volumes of g-council rules. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with ron and avri Ron A:@ J - fully agree with your summation avri:The working on this goes too far for me. I do not think we should be offereing specific alternatives. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with j scott Ron A:The reasoning doesn't havet to go to far into the weeds Anne Aikman-Scalese:J. Scott, Are you saying the deferral practice itself is discretionary with the Chair so the denial of a deferral is also discretionary? J. Scott Evans:Anne: Yes, picking up on Avri's point, the deferral practice is courtesy that has historically been extended at the discretion of the Chair. J. Scott Evans:And that there shoujld be no assumption that that disrection must be exercised in all cases. Ron A:Good bye all J. Scott Evans:or extended I should say Ray Fassett - RySG:thanks Wolf Wolf Knoben:Thanks all From: "KnobenW at telekom.de" Date: Thursday 6 September 2012 05:53 To: Marika Konings Subject: SCI Hi Marika, Could you please provide us with the chat of the last SCI meeting? Thanks and Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Mon Sep 10 15:44:05 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 11:44:05 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI In-Reply-To: <1347059103.85281.YahooMailNeo@web161006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1347059103.85281.YahooMailNeo@web161006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi, In general I am ok, but we need to differentiate for where the deferral, on PDP votes, is governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is procedurally defined and no longer a chair courtesy. http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/gnso-pdp-manual-04nov11-en.pdf For example on initiation and council deliberation. avri On 7 Sep 2012, at 19:05, J. Scott Evans wrote: > Dear All: > > My proposal was for us to simply state our decision and the explain our rationale for the decision to the GNSO. Here is some proposed text: > > 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. 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. . . . > > We should probably add some language about the neutral position of the GNSO Chair and reference the provision that currently exist for dealing with a perception that the Chair is not acting in a neutral manner. I just didn't have all those references handy, but I want to get this out to the list in time for everyone to consider before the next call. > > J. Scott > > j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com > > > From: "KnobenW at telekom.de" > To: marika.konings at icann.org > Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:35 AM > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: SCI > > Thanks Marika, I just share it with the team. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. September 2012 14:34 > An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich > Betreff: Re: SCI > > Hi Wolf, > > Please see the transcript below. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > Julie Hedlund:Hi Marika I just > Julie Hedlund:joined > Marika Konings:Hi Julie > Marika Konings:Analysis is up now. > avri:The opinion that says Avri can be marked as NCSG. > J. Scott Evans:I think there has already been an issue, the problem was there was no formal process for considering the issue > Ron A:@ Avri: ltd to one to ensure no stonewalling > Ron A:BC supports status quo > Ron A:Agree with argument; but safeguard the principle > Ron A:My point Avri! > J. Scott Evans:If we leave it as is, then I think we need be very specific in our reasoning by pointing out that we believe that the Chair has the discretion to deny. That needs to be clearly ennunciated. > Ron A:What happens if the chair is biased for or against? > Ron A:bias by way of affiliation > J. Scott Evans:Good question Anne. > J. Scott Evans:I thought Stephane clearly stated that he could NOT deny request because he had no process for doing so. Hence, theis issue coming to the SCIU > avri:Except in PDPD's where it has been enshrined, it is just a priactice and practice belongs to the chair. > J. Scott Evans:SCI > avri:PDP's not PDPD's > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Chair cannot choose without authority to do so in governance documents, I think. > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Principle should not depend on which particular individual holds the position of Chair of the GNSO. Authority to override a deferral should be clear if it is needed. > J. Scott Evans:If you want to keep it as is, I think that we need to clearly state that the Chair has discretion to deny or to put to a vote. > Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with J Scott > J. Scott Evans:In other words, clearly state that the request does not HAVE to be automatically granted > Ron A:@ J +1 > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Agree with J. Scott and Ray but we should cite to the basis for this opinion by SCI. > Ron A:8 days for larger institutions that make up the BC or ISCP need more than 8 days Avri > Ray Fassett - RySG:Anne-perhaps can cite the rationale as the checks balances that exist in procedures for the chair to always act neutral > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but overriding a deferral may not be seen as "neutral". > Ray Fassett - RySG:in that situation, there are procedures for others to bring that complaint, I believe > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but do we really want to put the GNSO Chair in that position in relation to complaints? > avri:i disagree with coffying what the chair can and can't do. > avri:coffying - codifying. > Ron A:@ Anne: we are only giving recommendations back to council at teh SCI > Ron A:SCI recommendations > avri:each chair gets to interpret on her own. > Ron A:Let the Chair's authority be challenged by test of the principle > avri:and if she is deemd to have done wrong by the g-council, she can be removed or not re-elected. Otherwise we will need 10 volumes of g-council rules. > Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with ron and avri > Ron A:@ J - fully agree with your summation > avri:The working on this goes too far for me. I do not think we should be offereing specific alternatives. > Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with j scott > Ron A:The reasoning doesn't havet to go to far into the weeds > Anne Aikman-Scalese:J. Scott, Are you saying the deferral practice itself is discretionary with the Chair so the denial of a deferral is also discretionary? > J. Scott Evans:Anne: Yes, picking up on Avri's point, the deferral practice is courtesy that has historically been extended at the discretion of the Chair. > J. Scott Evans:And that there shoujld be no assumption that that disrection must be exercised in all cases. > Ron A:Good bye all > J. Scott Evans:or extended I should say > Ray Fassett - RySG:thanks Wolf > Wolf Knoben:Thanks all > > From: "KnobenW at telekom.de" > Date: Thursday 6 September 2012 05:53 > To: Marika Konings > Subject: SCI > > Hi Marika, > > Could you please provide us with the chat of the last SCI meeting? > > Thanks and > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > > > > > From KnobenW at telekom.de Wed Sep 12 21:05:37 2012 From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:05:37 +0200 Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI In-Reply-To: References: <1347059103.85281.YahooMailNeo@web161006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Could then the following amendment cover your point, Avri? 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. 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. To be excluded from this courtesy are cases on PDP votes, where the deferral is governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is procedurally defined and no longer a chair courtesy. 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. . . . In addition, could someone from staff please assist in referencing the provisos for a neutral chair position? Thanks and best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche 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: Montag, 10. September 2012 17:44 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Hi, In general I am ok, but we need to differentiate for where the deferral, on PDP votes, is governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is procedurally defined and no longer a chair courtesy. http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/gnso-pdp-manual-04nov11-en.pdf For example on initiation and council deliberation. avri On 7 Sep 2012, at 19:05, J. Scott Evans wrote: > Dear All: > > My proposal was for us to simply state our decision and the explain our rationale for the decision to the GNSO. Here is some proposed text: > > 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. 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 situat! ion that may occur with regard to this informal practice. . . . > > We should probably add some language about the neutral position of the GNSO Chair and reference the provision that currently exist for dealing with a perception that the Chair is not acting in a neutral manner. I just didn't have all those references handy, but I want to get this out to the list in time for everyone to consider before the next call. > > J. Scott > > j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com > > > From: "KnobenW at telekom.de" > To: marika.konings at icann.org > Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:35 AM > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: SCI > > Thanks Marika, I just share it with the team. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. September 2012 14:34 > An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich > Betreff: Re: SCI > > Hi Wolf, > > Please see the transcript below. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > Julie Hedlund:Hi Marika I just > Julie Hedlund:joined > Marika Konings:Hi Julie > Marika Konings:Analysis is up now. > avri:The opinion that says Avri can be marked as NCSG. > J. Scott Evans:I think there has already been an issue, the problem was there was no formal process for considering the issue > Ron A:@ Avri: ltd to one to ensure no stonewalling > Ron A:BC supports status quo > Ron A:Agree with argument; but safeguard the principle > Ron A:My point Avri! > J. Scott Evans:If we leave it as is, then I think we need be very specific in our reasoning by pointing out that we believe that the Chair has the discretion to deny. That needs to be clearly ennunciated. > Ron A:What happens if the chair is biased for or against? > Ron A:bias by way of affiliation > J. Scott Evans:Good question Anne. > J. Scott Evans:I thought Stephane clearly stated that he could NOT deny request because he had no process for doing so. Hence, theis issue coming to the SCIU > avri:Except in PDPD's where it has been enshrined, it is just a priactice and practice belongs to the chair. > J. Scott Evans:SCI > avri:PDP's not PDPD's > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Chair cannot choose without authority to do so in governance documents, I think. > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Principle should not depend on which particular individual holds the position of Chair of the GNSO. Authority to override a deferral should be clear if it is needed. > J. Scott Evans:If you want to keep it as is, I think that we need to clearly state that the Chair has discretion to deny or to put to a vote. > Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with J Scott > J. Scott Evans:In other words, clearly state that the request does not HAVE to be automatically granted > Ron A:@ J +1 > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Agree with J. Scott and Ray but we should cite to the basis for this opinion by SCI. > Ron A:8 days for larger institutions that make up the BC or ISCP need more than 8 days Avri > Ray Fassett - RySG:Anne-perhaps can cite the rationale as the checks balances that exist in procedures for the chair to always act neutral > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but overriding a deferral may not be seen as "neutral". > Ray Fassett - RySG:in that situation, there are procedures for others to bring that complaint, I believe > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but do we really want to put the GNSO Chair in that position in relation to complaints? > avri:i disagree with coffying what the chair can and can't do. > avri:coffying - codifying. > Ron A:@ Anne: we are only giving recommendations back to council at teh SCI > Ron A:SCI recommendations > avri:each chair gets to interpret on her own. > Ron A:Let the Chair's authority be challenged by test of the principle > avri:and if she is deemd to have done wrong by the g-council, she can be removed or not re-elected. Otherwise we will need 10 volumes of g-council rules. > Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with ron and avri > Ron A:@ J - fully agree with your summation > avri:The working on this goes too far for me. I do not think we should be offereing specific alternatives. > Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with j scott > Ron A:The reasoning doesn't havet to go to far into the weeds > Anne Aikman-Scalese:J. Scott, Are you saying the deferral practice itself is discretionary with the Chair so the denial of a deferral is also discretionary? > J. Scott Evans:Anne: Yes, picking up on Avri's point, the deferral practice is courtesy that has historically been extended at the discretion of the Chair. > J. Scott Evans:And that there shoujld be no assumption that that disrection must be exercised in all cases. > Ron A:Good bye all > J. Scott Evans:or extended I should say > Ray Fassett - RySG:thanks Wolf > Wolf Knoben:Thanks all > > From: "KnobenW at telekom.de" > Date: Thursday 6 September 2012 05:53 > To: Marika Konings > Subject: SCI > > Hi Marika, > > Could you please provide us with the chat of the last SCI meeting? > > Thanks and > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From KnobenW at telekom.de Wed Sep 12 21:12:15 2012 From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:12:15 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting Message-ID: All: Please find the following agenda for the call tomorrow: 1. Roll call 2. Statement of Interests 3. Approval of the agenda 4. Short update on council action 5. Continuing discussion (and suggested solutions) on - Deferral of Motions J. Scott 's suggestion - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP (see proposed language on list) Update on Team Work 7. Raising an issue - Has this been sufficiently clarified - currently needs to come from g-council or from a WG 8. Status update on Working Group survey 9. AOB Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Thu Sep 13 07:11:04 2012 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 00:11:04 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER: Meeting Invitation / Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting/ Thursday 13 September at 1900 UTC Message-ID: Dear All, The Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting teleconference is scheduled on Thursday 13 September 2012 at 1900 UTC. 12:00 PDT, 15:00 EDT, 20:00 London, 21:00 CET For other places see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=SCI+Meeting&iso=20120913T19 Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/standcommdraft/ Dial-in details are below. If you require a dial-out, please email me your preferred contact number. Thank you Kind regards Nathalie ____________________________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: SCI For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. ____________________________________________________________________________ Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA* 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA 000-800-852-1268 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 *Access to your conference call will be either of the numbers listed, dependent on the participants' local telecom provider. Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. ---------------------------- Nathalie Peregrine GNSO Secretariat Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marika.konings at icann.org Thu Sep 13 10:21:14 2012 From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 03:21:14 -0700 Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI In-Reply-To: Message-ID: You may want to reference section 6.1.3 Purpose, Importance, and Expectations of the Chair of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines which includes amongst others 'The Chair is expected to assume a neutral role, refrain from promoting a specific agenda, and ensure fair treatment of all opinions and objectivity in identifying areas of agreement'. With best regards, Marika From: "KnobenW at telekom.de" > Date: Wednesday 12 September 2012 23:05 To: Avri Doria >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Could then the following amendment cover your point, Avri? 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. 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. To be excluded from this courtesy are cases on PDP votes, where the deferral is governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is procedurally defined and no longer a chair courtesy. 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. . . . In addition, could someone from staff please assist in referencing the provisos for a neutral chair position? Thanks and best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche 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: Montag, 10. September 2012 17:44 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Hi, In general I am ok, but we need to differentiate for where the deferral, on PDP votes, is governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is procedurally defined and no longer a chair courtesy. http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/gnso-pdp-manual-04nov11-en.pdf For example on initiation and council deliberation. avri On 7 Sep 2012, at 19:05, J. Scott Evans wrote: > Dear All: > > My proposal was for us to simply state our decision and the explain our rationale for the decision to the GNSO. Here is some proposed text: > > 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. 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 situat! ion that may occur with regard to this informal practice. . . . > > We should probably add some language about the neutral position of the GNSO Chair and reference the provision that currently exist for dealing with a perception that the Chair is not acting in a neutral manner. I just didn't have all those references handy, but I want to get this out to the list in time for everyone to consider before the next call. > > J. Scott > > j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com > > > From: "KnobenW at telekom.de" > > To: marika.konings at icann.org > Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:35 AM > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: SCI > > Thanks Marika, I just share it with the team. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. September 2012 14:34 > An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich > Betreff: Re: SCI > > Hi Wolf, > > Please see the transcript below. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > Julie Hedlund:Hi Marika I just > Julie Hedlund:joined > Marika Konings:Hi Julie > Marika Konings:Analysis is up now. > avri:The opinion that says Avri can be marked as NCSG. > J. Scott Evans:I think there has already been an issue, the problem was there was no formal process for considering the issue > Ron A:@ Avri: ltd to one to ensure no stonewalling > Ron A:BC supports status quo > Ron A:Agree with argument; but safeguard the principle > Ron A:My point Avri! > J. Scott Evans:If we leave it as is, then I think we need be very specific in our reasoning by pointing out that we believe that the Chair has the discretion to deny. That needs to be clearly ennunciated. > Ron A:What happens if the chair is biased for or against? > Ron A:bias by way of affiliation > J. Scott Evans:Good question Anne. > J. Scott Evans:I thought Stephane clearly stated that he could NOT deny request because he had no process for doing so. Hence, theis issue coming to the SCIU > avri:Except in PDPD's where it has been enshrined, it is just a priactice and practice belongs to the chair. > J. Scott Evans:SCI > avri:PDP's not PDPD's > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Chair cannot choose without authority to do so in governance documents, I think. > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Principle should not depend on which particular individual holds the position of Chair of the GNSO. Authority to override a deferral should be clear if it is needed. > J. Scott Evans:If you want to keep it as is, I think that we need to clearly state that the Chair has discretion to deny or to put to a vote. > Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with J Scott > J. Scott Evans:In other words, clearly state that the request does not HAVE to be automatically granted > Ron A:@ J +1 > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Agree with J. Scott and Ray but we should cite to the basis for this opinion by SCI. > Ron A:8 days for larger institutions that make up the BC or ISCP need more than 8 days Avri > Ray Fassett - RySG:Anne-perhaps can cite the rationale as the checks balances that exist in procedures for the chair to always act neutral > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but overriding a deferral may not be seen as "neutral". > Ray Fassett - RySG:in that situation, there are procedures for others to bring that complaint, I believe > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but do we really want to put the GNSO Chair in that position in relation to complaints? > avri:i disagree with coffying what the chair can and can't do. > avri:coffying - codifying. > Ron A:@ Anne: we are only giving recommendations back to council at teh SCI > Ron A:SCI recommendations > avri:each chair gets to interpret on her own. > Ron A:Let the Chair's authority be challenged by test of the principle > avri:and if she is deemd to have done wrong by the g-council, she can be removed or not re-elected. Otherwise we will need 10 volumes of g-council rules. > Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with ron and avri > Ron A:@ J - fully agree with your summation > avri:The working on this goes too far for me. I do not think we should be offereing specific alternatives. > Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with j scott > Ron A:The reasoning doesn't havet to go to far into the weeds > Anne Aikman-Scalese:J. Scott, Are you saying the deferral practice itself is discretionary with the Chair so the denial of a deferral is also discretionary? > J. Scott Evans:Anne: Yes, picking up on Avri's point, the deferral practice is courtesy that has historically been extended at the discretion of the Chair. > J. Scott Evans:And that there shoujld be no assumption that that disrection must be exercised in all cases. > Ron A:Good bye all > J. Scott Evans:or extended I should say > Ray Fassett - RySG:thanks Wolf > Wolf Knoben:Thanks all > > From: "KnobenW at telekom.de" > > Date: Thursday 6 September 2012 05:53 > To: Marika Konings > > Subject: SCI > > Hi Marika, > > Could you please provide us with the chat of the last SCI meeting? > > Thanks and > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jscottevans at yahoo.com Thu Sep 13 10:24:13 2012 From: jscottevans at yahoo.com (J. Scott Evans) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 03:24:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI In-Reply-To: References: <1347059103.85281.YahooMailNeo@web161006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1347531853.243.YahooMailNeo@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Avri: Would the addition of the highlighted language below address your concerns? J. Scott j. scott evans - ?head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com ________________________________ From: "KnobenW at telekom.de" To: avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 2:05 PM Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Could then the following amendment cover your point, Avri? ? 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.[insert footnote referring to PDP Manual here].?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. . . . ? ? In addition, could someone from staff please assist in referencing the provisos for a neutral chair position? ? Thanks and best regards Wolf-Ulrich ? ? ? -----Urspr?ngliche 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: Montag, 10. September 2012 17:44 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI ? ? Hi, ? In general I am ok, but we need to differentiate for where the deferral, on PDP votes, is governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is procedurally defined and no longer a chair courtesy. ? http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/gnso-pdp-manual-04nov11-en.pdf ? For example on initiation and council deliberation. ? avri ? ? ? ? On 7 Sep 2012, at 19:05, J. Scott Evans wrote: ? > Dear All: > > My proposal was for us to simply state our decision and the explain our rationale for the decision to the GNSO.? Here is some proposed text: > > 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.? 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 situat! ion that may occur with regard to this informal practice. . . . > > We should probably add some language about the neutral position of the GNSO Chair and reference the provision that currently exist for dealing with a perception that the Chair is not acting in a neutral manner.? I just didn't have all those references handy, but I want to get this out to the list in time for everyone to consider before the next call. > > J. Scott >? > j. scott evans -? head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com > > > From: "KnobenW at telekom.de" > To: marika.konings at icann.org > Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:35 AM > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: SCI > > Thanks Marika, I just share it with the team. >? > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich >? > > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. September 2012 14:34 > An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich > Betreff: Re: SCI > > Hi Wolf, > > Please see the transcript below. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > Julie Hedlund:Hi Marika I just >?? Julie Hedlund:joined >?? Marika Konings:Hi Julie >?? Marika Konings:Analysis is up now. >?? avri:The opinion that says Avri can be marked as NCSG. >?? J. Scott Evans:I think there has already been an issue, the problem was there was no formal process for considering the issue >?? Ron A:@ Avri: ltd to one to ensure no stonewalling >?? Ron A:BC supports status quo >?? Ron A:Agree with argument; but safeguard the principle >?? Ron A:My point Avri! >?? J. Scott Evans:If we leave it as is, then I think we need be very specific in our reasoning by pointing out that we believe that the Chair? has the discretion to deny.? That needs to be clearly ennunciated. >?? Ron A:What happens if the chair is biased for or against? >?? Ron A:bias by way of affiliation >?? J. Scott Evans:Good question Anne. >?? J. Scott Evans:I thought Stephane clearly stated that he could NOT deny request because he had no process for doing so.? Hence, theis issue coming to the? SCIU >?? avri:Except in PDPD's where it has been enshrined, it is just a priactice and practice belongs to the chair. >?? J. Scott Evans:SCI >?? avri:PDP's not PDPD's >?? Anne Aikman-Scalese:Chair cannot choose without authority to do so in governance documents, I think. >?? Anne Aikman-Scalese:Principle should not depend on which particular individual holds the position of Chair of the GNSO.? Authority to override a deferral should be clear if it is needed. >?? J. Scott Evans:If you want to keep it as is, I think that we need to clearly state that the Chair has discretion to deny or to put to a vote.? >?? Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with J Scott >?? J. Scott Evans:In other words, clearly state that the request does not HAVE to be automatically granted >?? Ron A:@ J +1 >?? Anne Aikman-Scalese:Agree with J. Scott and Ray but we should cite to the basis for this opinion by SCI. >?? Ron A:8 days for larger institutions that make up the BC or ISCP need more than 8 days Avri >?? Ray Fassett - RySG:Anne-perhaps can cite the rationale as the checks balances that exist in procedures for the chair to always act neutral >?? Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but overriding a deferral may not be seen as "neutral". >?? Ray Fassett - RySG:in that situation, there are procedures for others to bring that complaint, I believe >?? Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but do we really want to put the GNSO Chair in that position in relation to complaints? >?? avri:i disagree with coffying what the chair can and can't do. >?? avri:coffying - codifying. >?? Ron A:@ Anne: we are only giving recommendations back to council at teh SCI >?? Ron A:SCI recommendations >?? avri:each chair gets to interpret on her own. >?? Ron A:Let the Chair's authority be challenged by test of the principle >?? avri:and if she is deemd to have done wrong by the g-council, she can be removed or not re-elected.? Otherwise we will need 10 volumes of g-council rules. >?? Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with ron and avri >?? Ron A:@ J - fully agree with your summation >?? avri:The working on this goes too far for me.? I do not think we should be offereing specific alternatives. >?? Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with j scott >?? Ron A:The reasoning doesn't havet to go to far into the weeds >?? Anne Aikman-Scalese:J. Scott, Are you saying the deferral? practice itself is discretionary with the Chair so the denial of a deferral is also discretionary? >?? J. Scott Evans:Anne:? Yes, picking up on Avri's point, the deferral practice is courtesy that has historically been extended at the discretion of the Chair. >?? J. Scott Evans:And that there shoujld be no assumption that that disrection must be exercised in all cases. >?? Ron A:Good bye all >?? J. Scott Evans:or extended I should say >?? Ray Fassett - RySG:thanks Wolf >?? Wolf Knoben:Thanks all > > From: "KnobenW at telekom.de" > Date: Thursday 6 September 2012 05:53 > To: Marika Konings > Subject: SCI > > Hi Marika, >? > Could you please provide us with the chat of the last SCI meeting? >? > Thanks and > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >? >? >? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jscottevans at yahoo.com Thu Sep 13 10:26:12 2012 From: jscottevans at yahoo.com (J. Scott Evans) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 03:26:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1347531972.86403.YahooMailNeo@web161006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> We may also want to cite the provisions that deal with how to deal with a complaint about the Chair's performance. ?Are there any such provisions? J. Scott ? j. scott evans - ?head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com ________________________________ From: Marika Konings To: "KnobenW at telekom.de" ; "avri at acm.org" ; "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 3:21 AM Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI You may want to reference section?6.1.3 Purpose, Importance, and Expectations of the Chair of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines which includes amongst others 'The Chair is expected to assume a neutral role, refrain from promoting a specific agenda, and ensure fair treatment of all opinions and objectivity in identifying areas of agreement'.? With best regards, Marika From: "KnobenW at telekom.de" Date: Wednesday 12 September 2012 23:05 To: Avri Doria , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Could then the following amendment cover your point, Avri? ? 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.? 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. To be excluded from this courtesy are cases on PDP votes, where the deferral is governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is procedurally defined and no longer a chair courtesy. ? 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. . . . ? ? In addition, could someone from staff please assist in referencing the provisos for a neutral chair position? ? Thanks and best regards Wolf-Ulrich ? ? ? -----Urspr?ngliche 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: Montag, 10. September 2012 17:44 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI ? ? Hi, ? In general I am ok, but we need to differentiate for where the deferral, on PDP votes, is governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is procedurally defined and no longer a chair courtesy. ? http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/gnso-pdp-manual-04nov11-en.pdf ? For example on initiation and council deliberation. ? avri ? ? ? ? On 7 Sep 2012, at 19:05, J. Scott Evans wrote: ? > Dear All: > > My proposal was for us to simply state our decision and the explain our rationale for the decision to the GNSO.? Here is some proposed text: > > 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.? 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 situat! ion that may occur with regard to this informal practice. . . . > > We should probably add some language about the neutral position of the GNSO Chair and reference the provision that currently exist for dealing with a perception that the Chair is not acting in a neutral manner.? I just didn't have all those references handy, but I want to get this out to the list in time for everyone to consider before the next call. > > J. Scott >? > j. scott evans -? head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com > > > From: "KnobenW at telekom.de" > To: marika.konings at icann.org > Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:35 AM > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: SCI > > Thanks Marika, I just share it with the team. >? > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich >? > > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. September 2012 14:34 > An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich > Betreff: Re: SCI > > Hi Wolf, > > Please see the transcript below. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > Julie Hedlund:Hi Marika I just >?? Julie Hedlund:joined >?? Marika Konings:Hi Julie >?? Marika Konings:Analysis is up now. >?? avri:The opinion that says Avri can be marked as NCSG. >?? J. Scott Evans:I think there has already been an issue, the problem was there was no formal process for considering the issue >?? Ron A:@ Avri: ltd to one to ensure no stonewalling >?? Ron A:BC supports status quo >?? Ron A:Agree with argument; but safeguard the principle >?? Ron A:My point Avri! >?? J. Scott Evans:If we leave it as is, then I think we need be very specific in our reasoning by pointing out that we believe that the Chair? has the discretion to deny.? That needs to be clearly ennunciated. >?? Ron A:What happens if the chair is biased for or against? >?? Ron A:bias by way of affiliation >?? J. Scott Evans:Good question Anne. >?? J. Scott Evans:I thought Stephane clearly stated that he could NOT deny request because he had no process for doing so.? Hence, theis issue coming to the? SCIU >?? avri:Except in PDPD's where it has been enshrined, it is just a priactice and practice belongs to the chair. >?? J. Scott Evans:SCI >?? avri:PDP's not PDPD's >?? Anne Aikman-Scalese:Chair cannot choose without authority to do so in governance documents, I think. >?? Anne Aikman-Scalese:Principle should not depend on which particular individual holds the position of Chair of the GNSO.? Authority to override a deferral should be clear if it is needed. >?? J. Scott Evans:If you want to keep it as is, I think that we need to clearly state that the Chair has discretion to deny or to put to a vote.? >?? Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with J Scott >?? J. Scott Evans:In other words, clearly state that the request does not HAVE to be automatically granted >?? Ron A:@ J +1 >?? Anne Aikman-Scalese:Agree with J. Scott and Ray but we should cite to the basis for this opinion by SCI. >?? Ron A:8 days for larger institutions that make up the BC or ISCP need more than 8 days Avri >?? Ray Fassett - RySG:Anne-perhaps can cite the rationale as the checks balances that exist in procedures for the chair to always act neutral >?? Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but overriding a deferral may not be seen as "neutral". >?? Ray Fassett - RySG:in that situation, there are procedures for others to bring that complaint, I believe >?? Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but do we really want to put the GNSO Chair in that position in relation to complaints? >?? avri:i disagree with coffying what the chair can and can't do. >?? avri:coffying - codifying. >?? Ron A:@ Anne: we are only giving recommendations back to council at teh SCI >?? Ron A:SCI recommendations >?? avri:each chair gets to interpret on her own. >?? Ron A:Let the Chair's authority be challenged by test of the principle >?? avri:and if she is deemd to have done wrong by the g-council, she can be removed or not re-elected.? Otherwise we will need 10 volumes of g-council rules. >?? Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with ron and avri >?? Ron A:@ J - fully agree with your summation >?? avri:The working on this goes too far for me.? I do not think we should be offereing specific alternatives. >?? Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with j scott >?? Ron A:The reasoning doesn't havet to go to far into the weeds >?? Anne Aikman-Scalese:J. Scott, Are you saying the deferral? practice itself is discretionary with the Chair so the denial of a deferral is also discretionary? >?? J. Scott Evans:Anne:? Yes, picking up on Avri's point, the deferral practice is courtesy that has historically been extended at the discretion of the Chair. >?? J. Scott Evans:And that there shoujld be no assumption that that disrection must be exercised in all cases. >?? Ron A:Good bye all >?? J. Scott Evans:or extended I should say >?? Ray Fassett - RySG:thanks Wolf >?? Wolf Knoben:Thanks all > > From: "KnobenW at telekom.de" > Date: Thursday 6 September 2012 05:53 > To: Marika Konings > Subject: SCI > > Hi Marika, >? > Could you please provide us with the chat of the last SCI meeting? >? > Thanks and > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >? >? >? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Thu Sep 13 10:33:05 2012 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 10:33:05 +0000 Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI In-Reply-To: <1347531972.86403.YahooMailNeo@web161006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: ,<1347531972.86403.YahooMailNeo@web161006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9553F58F1@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> I think it would be quite difficult for any Chair to assert neutrality in deciding to overrule a requested deferral that has become customary in gnso practice. It seems to me that in the situation recently encountered, a charge of lack of neutrality would definitely have been levelled against the current chair. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: J. Scott Evans [jscottevans at yahoo.com] Received: Thursday, 13 Sep 2012, 3:27am To: Marika Konings [marika.konings at icann.org]; KnobenW at telekom.de [KnobenW at telekom.de]; avri at acm.org [avri at acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI We may also want to cite the provisions that deal with how to deal with a complaint about the Chair's performance. Are there any such provisions? J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com ________________________________ From: Marika Konings To: "KnobenW at telekom.de" ; "avri at acm.org" ; "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 3:21 AM Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI You may want to reference section 6.1.3 Purpose, Importance, and Expectations of the Chair of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines which includes amongst others 'The Chair is expected to assume a neutral role, refrain from promoting a specific agenda, and ensure fair treatment of all opinions and objectivity in identifying areas of agreement'. With best regards, Marika From: "KnobenW at telekom.de" > Date: Wednesday 12 September 2012 23:05 To: Avri Doria >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Could then the following amendment cover your point, Avri? 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. 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. To be excluded from this courtesy are cases on PDP votes, where the deferral is governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is procedurally defined and no longer a chair courtesy. 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. . . . In addition, could someone from staff please assist in referencing the provisos for a neutral chair position? Thanks and best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche 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: Montag, 10. September 2012 17:44 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Hi, In general I am ok, but we need to differentiate for where the deferral, on PDP votes, is governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is procedurally defined and no longer a chair courtesy. http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/gnso-pdp-manual-04nov11-en.pdf For example on initiation and council deliberation. avri On 7 Sep 2012, at 19:05, J. Scott Evans wrote: > Dear All: > > My proposal was for us to simply state our decision and the explain our rationale for the decision to the GNSO. Here is some proposed text: > > 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. 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 situat! ion that may occur with regard to this informal practice. . . . > > We should probably add some language about the neutral position of the GNSO Chair and reference the provision that currently exist for dealing with a perception that the Chair is not acting in a neutral manner. I just didn't have all those references handy, but I want to get this out to the list in time for everyone to consider before the next call. > > J. Scott > > j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com > > > From: "KnobenW at telekom.de" > > To: marika.konings at icann.org > Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:35 AM > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: SCI > > Thanks Marika, I just share it with the team. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. September 2012 14:34 > An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich > Betreff: Re: SCI > > Hi Wolf, > > Please see the transcript below. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > Julie Hedlund:Hi Marika I just > Julie Hedlund:joined > Marika Konings:Hi Julie > Marika Konings:Analysis is up now. > avri:The opinion that says Avri can be marked as NCSG. > J. Scott Evans:I think there has already been an issue, the problem was there was no formal process for considering the issue > Ron A:@ Avri: ltd to one to ensure no stonewalling > Ron A:BC supports status quo > Ron A:Agree with argument; but safeguard the principle > Ron A:My point Avri! > J. Scott Evans:If we leave it as is, then I think we need be very specific in our reasoning by pointing out that we believe that the Chair has the discretion to deny. That needs to be clearly ennunciated. > Ron A:What happens if the chair is biased for or against? > Ron A:bias by way of affiliation > J. Scott Evans:Good question Anne. > J. Scott Evans:I thought Stephane clearly stated that he could NOT deny request because he had no process for doing so. Hence, theis issue coming to the SCIU > avri:Except in PDPD's where it has been enshrined, it is just a priactice and practice belongs to the chair. > J. Scott Evans:SCI > avri:PDP's not PDPD's > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Chair cannot choose without authority to do so in governance documents, I think. > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Principle should not depend on which particular individual holds the position of Chair of the GNSO. Authority to override a deferral should be clear if it is needed. > J. Scott Evans:If you want to keep it as is, I think that we need to clearly state that the Chair has discretion to deny or to put to a vote. > Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with J Scott > J. Scott Evans:In other words, clearly state that the request does not HAVE to be automatically granted > Ron A:@ J +1 > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Agree with J. Scott and Ray but we should cite to the basis for this opinion by SCI. > Ron A:8 days for larger institutions that make up the BC or ISCP need more than 8 days Avri > Ray Fassett - RySG:Anne-perhaps can cite the rationale as the checks balances that exist in procedures for the chair to always act neutral > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but overriding a deferral may not be seen as "neutral". > Ray Fassett - RySG:in that situation, there are procedures for others to bring that complaint, I believe > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but do we really want to put the GNSO Chair in that position in relation to complaints? > avri:i disagree with coffying what the chair can and can't do. > avri:coffying - codifying. > Ron A:@ Anne: we are only giving recommendations back to council at teh SCI > Ron A:SCI recommendations > avri:each chair gets to interpret on her own. > Ron A:Let the Chair's authority be challenged by test of the principle > avri:and if she is deemd to have done wrong by the g-council, she can be removed or not re-elected. Otherwise we will need 10 volumes of g-council rules. > Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with ron and avri > Ron A:@ J - fully agree with your summation > avri:The working on this goes too far for me. I do not think we should be offereing specific alternatives. > Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with j scott > Ron A:The reasoning doesn't havet to go to far into the weeds > Anne Aikman-Scalese:J. Scott, Are you saying the deferral practice itself is discretionary with the Chair so the denial of a deferral is also discretionary? > J. Scott Evans:Anne: Yes, picking up on Avri's point, the deferral practice is courtesy that has historically been extended at the discretion of the Chair. > J. Scott Evans:And that there shoujld be no assumption that that disrection must be exercised in all cases. > Ron A:Good bye all > J. Scott Evans:or extended I should say > Ray Fassett - RySG:thanks Wolf > Wolf Knoben:Thanks all > > From: "KnobenW at telekom.de" > > Date: Thursday 6 September 2012 05:53 > To: Marika Konings > > Subject: SCI > > Hi Marika, > > Could you please provide us with the chat of the last SCI meeting? > > Thanks and > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > > > > > ________________________________ 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: From marika.konings at icann.org Thu Sep 13 11:03:14 2012 From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 04:03:14 -0700 Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI In-Reply-To: <1347531972.86403.YahooMailNeo@web161006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Section 3.7 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines states (see specifically underlined sentence): '3.7 Appeal Process Any WG member that believes that his/her contributions are being systematically ignored or discounted or wants to appeal a decision of the WG or CO should first discuss the circumstances with the WG Chair. In the event that the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily, the WG member should request an opportunity to discuss the situation with the Chair of the Chartering Organization or their designated representative. In addition, if any member of the WG is of the opinion that someone is not performing their role according to the criteria outlined in Section 2.2 of this document, the same appeals process may be invoked'. With best regards, Marika From: "J. Scott Evans" > Reply-To: "J. Scott Evans" > Date: Thursday 13 September 2012 12:26 To: Marika Konings >, "KnobenW at telekom.de" >, Avri Doria >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI We may also want to cite the provisions that deal with how to deal with a complaint about the Chair's performance. Are there any such provisions? J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com ________________________________ From: Marika Konings > To: "KnobenW at telekom.de" >; "avri at acm.org" >; "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 3:21 AM Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI You may want to reference section 6.1.3 Purpose, Importance, and Expectations of the Chair of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines which includes amongst others 'The Chair is expected to assume a neutral role, refrain from promoting a specific agenda, and ensure fair treatment of all opinions and objectivity in identifying areas of agreement'. With best regards, Marika From: "KnobenW at telekom.de" > Date: Wednesday 12 September 2012 23:05 To: Avri Doria >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Could then the following amendment cover your point, Avri? 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. 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. To be excluded from this courtesy are cases on PDP votes, where the deferral is governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is procedurally defined and no longer a chair courtesy. 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. . . . In addition, could someone from staff please assist in referencing the provisos for a neutral chair position? Thanks and best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche 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: Montag, 10. September 2012 17:44 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Hi, In general I am ok, but we need to differentiate for where the deferral, on PDP votes, is governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is procedurally defined and no longer a chair courtesy. http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/gnso-pdp-manual-04nov11-en.pdf For example on initiation and council deliberation. avri On 7 Sep 2012, at 19:05, J. Scott Evans wrote: > Dear All: > > My proposal was for us to simply state our decision and the explain our rationale for the decision to the GNSO. Here is some proposed text: > > 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. 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 situat! ion that may occur with regard to this informal practice. . . . > > We should probably add some language about the neutral position of the GNSO Chair and reference the provision that currently exist for dealing with a perception that the Chair is not acting in a neutral manner. I just didn't have all those references handy, but I want to get this out to the list in time for everyone to consider before the next call. > > J. Scott > > j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com > > > From: "KnobenW at telekom.de" > > To: marika.konings at icann.org > Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:35 AM > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: SCI > > Thanks Marika, I just share it with the team. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. September 2012 14:34 > An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich > Betreff: Re: SCI > > Hi Wolf, > > Please see the transcript below. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > Julie Hedlund:Hi Marika I just > Julie Hedlund:joined > Marika Konings:Hi Julie > Marika Konings:Analysis is up now. > avri:The opinion that says Avri can be marked as NCSG. > J. Scott Evans:I think there has already been an issue, the problem was there was no formal process for considering the issue > Ron A:@ Avri: ltd to one to ensure no stonewalling > Ron A:BC supports status quo > Ron A:Agree with argument; but safeguard the principle > Ron A:My point Avri! > J. Scott Evans:If we leave it as is, then I think we need be very specific in our reasoning by pointing out that we believe that the Chair has the discretion to deny. That needs to be clearly ennunciated. > Ron A:What happens if the chair is biased for or against? > Ron A:bias by way of affiliation > J. Scott Evans:Good question Anne. > J. Scott Evans:I thought Stephane clearly stated that he could NOT deny request because he had no process for doing so. Hence, theis issue coming to the SCIU > avri:Except in PDPD's where it has been enshrined, it is just a priactice and practice belongs to the chair. > J. Scott Evans:SCI > avri:PDP's not PDPD's > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Chair cannot choose without authority to do so in governance documents, I think. > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Principle should not depend on which particular individual holds the position of Chair of the GNSO. Authority to override a deferral should be clear if it is needed. > J. Scott Evans:If you want to keep it as is, I think that we need to clearly state that the Chair has discretion to deny or to put to a vote. > Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with J Scott > J. Scott Evans:In other words, clearly state that the request does not HAVE to be automatically granted > Ron A:@ J +1 > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Agree with J. Scott and Ray but we should cite to the basis for this opinion by SCI. > Ron A:8 days for larger institutions that make up the BC or ISCP need more than 8 days Avri > Ray Fassett - RySG:Anne-perhaps can cite the rationale as the checks balances that exist in procedures for the chair to always act neutral > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but overriding a deferral may not be seen as "neutral". > Ray Fassett - RySG:in that situation, there are procedures for others to bring that complaint, I believe > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but do we really want to put the GNSO Chair in that position in relation to complaints? > avri:i disagree with coffying what the chair can and can't do. > avri:coffying - codifying. > Ron A:@ Anne: we are only giving recommendations back to council at teh SCI > Ron A:SCI recommendations > avri:each chair gets to interpret on her own. > Ron A:Let the Chair's authority be challenged by test of the principle > avri:and if she is deemd to have done wrong by the g-council, she can be removed or not re-elected. Otherwise we will need 10 volumes of g-council rules. > Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with ron and avri > Ron A:@ J - fully agree with your summation > avri:The working on this goes too far for me. I do not think we should be offereing specific alternatives. > Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with j scott > Ron A:The reasoning doesn't havet to go to far into the weeds > Anne Aikman-Scalese:J. Scott, Are you saying the deferral practice itself is discretionary with the Chair so the denial of a deferral is also discretionary? > J. Scott Evans:Anne: Yes, picking up on Avri's point, the deferral practice is courtesy that has historically been extended at the discretion of the Chair. > J. Scott Evans:And that there shoujld be no assumption that that disrection must be exercised in all cases. > Ron A:Good bye all > J. Scott Evans:or extended I should say > Ray Fassett - RySG:thanks Wolf > Wolf Knoben:Thanks all > > From: "KnobenW at telekom.de" > > Date: Thursday 6 September 2012 05:53 > To: Marika Konings > > Subject: SCI > > Hi Marika, > > Could you please provide us with the chat of the last SCI meeting? > > Thanks and > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jscottevans at yahoo.com Thu Sep 13 11:39:17 2012 From: jscottevans at yahoo.com (J. Scott Evans) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 04:39:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI In-Reply-To: References: <1347531972.86403.YahooMailNeo@web161006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1347536357.12444.YahooMailNeo@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Is this provision applicable to the GNSO Chair? ? j. scott evans - ?head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com ________________________________ From: Marika Konings To: J. Scott Evans ; "KnobenW at telekom.de" ; "avri at acm.org" ; "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 4:03 AM Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Section 3.7 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines states (see specifically underlined sentence): > >'3.7 Appeal Process?Any WG member that believes that his/her contributions are being systematically ignored or discounted or wants to appeal a decision of the WG or CO should first discuss the circumstances with the WG Chair. In the event that the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily, the WG member should request an?opportunity to discuss the situation with the Chair of the Chartering Organization or their designated representative.? In addition, if any member of the WG is of the opinion that someone is not performing their role according to the criteria outlined in Section 2.2 of this document, the same appeals process may be invoked'. With best regards, Marika? From: "J. Scott Evans" Reply-To: "J. Scott Evans" Date: Thursday 13 September 2012 12:26 To: Marika Konings , "KnobenW at telekom.de" , Avri Doria , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI We may also want to cite the provisions that deal with how to deal with a complaint about the Chair's performance. ?Are there any such provisions? J. Scott ? j. scott evans - ?head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com ________________________________ From: Marika Konings To: "KnobenW at telekom.de" ; "avri at acm.org" ; "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 3:21 AM Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI You may want to reference section?6.1.3 Purpose, Importance, and Expectations of the Chair of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines which includes amongst others 'The Chair is expected to assume a neutral role, refrain from promoting a specific agenda, and ensure fair treatment of all opinions and objectivity in identifying areas of agreement'.? With best regards, Marika From: "KnobenW at telekom.de" Date: Wednesday 12 September 2012 23:05 To: Avri Doria , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Could then the following amendment cover your point, Avri? ? 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.? 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. To be excluded from this courtesy are cases on PDP votes, where the deferral is governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is procedurally defined and no longer a chair courtesy. ? 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. . . . ? ? In addition, could someone from staff please assist in referencing the provisos for a neutral chair position? ? Thanks and best regards Wolf-Ulrich ? ? ? -----Urspr?ngliche 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: Montag, 10. September 2012 17:44 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI ? ? Hi, ? In general I am ok, but we need to differentiate for where the deferral, on PDP votes, is governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is procedurally defined and no longer a chair courtesy. ? http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/gnso-pdp-manual-04nov11-en.pdf ? For example on initiation and council deliberation. ? avri ? ? ? ? On 7 Sep 2012, at 19:05, J. Scott Evans wrote: ? > Dear All: > > My proposal was for us to simply state our decision and the explain our rationale for the decision to the GNSO.? Here is some proposed text: > > 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.? 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 situat! ion that may occur with regard to this informal practice. . . . > > We should probably add some language about the neutral position of the GNSO Chair and reference the provision that currently exist for dealing with a perception that the Chair is not acting in a neutral manner.? I just didn't have all those references handy, but I want to get this out to the list in time for everyone to consider before the next call. > > J. Scott >? > j. scott evans -? head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com > > > From: "KnobenW at telekom.de" > To: marika.konings at icann.org > Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:35 AM > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: SCI > > Thanks Marika, I just share it with the team. >? > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich >? > > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. September 2012 14:34 > An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich > Betreff: Re: SCI > > Hi Wolf, > > Please see the transcript below. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > Julie Hedlund:Hi Marika I just >?? Julie Hedlund:joined >?? Marika Konings:Hi Julie >?? Marika Konings:Analysis is up now. >?? avri:The opinion that says Avri can be marked as NCSG. >?? J. Scott Evans:I think there has already been an issue, the problem was there was no formal process for considering the issue >?? Ron A:@ Avri: ltd to one to ensure no stonewalling >?? Ron A:BC supports status quo >?? Ron A:Agree with argument; but safeguard the principle >?? Ron A:My point Avri! >?? J. Scott Evans:If we leave it as is, then I think we need be very specific in our reasoning by pointing out that we believe that the Chair? has the discretion to deny.? That needs to be clearly ennunciated. >?? Ron A:What happens if the chair is biased for or against? >?? Ron A:bias by way of affiliation >?? J. Scott Evans:Good question Anne. >?? J. Scott Evans:I thought Stephane clearly stated that he could NOT deny request because he had no process for doing so.? Hence, theis issue coming to the? SCIU >?? avri:Except in PDPD's where it has been enshrined, it is just a priactice and practice belongs to the chair. >?? J. Scott Evans:SCI >?? avri:PDP's not PDPD's >?? Anne Aikman-Scalese:Chair cannot choose without authority to do so in governance documents, I think. >?? Anne Aikman-Scalese:Principle should not depend on which particular individual holds the position of Chair of the GNSO.? Authority to override a deferral should be clear if it is needed. >?? J. Scott Evans:If you want to keep it as is, I think that we need to clearly state that the Chair has discretion to deny or to put to a vote.? >?? Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with J Scott >?? J. Scott Evans:In other words, clearly state that the request does not HAVE to be automatically granted >?? Ron A:@ J +1 >?? Anne Aikman-Scalese:Agree with J. Scott and Ray but we should cite to the basis for this opinion by SCI. >?? Ron A:8 days for larger institutions that make up the BC or ISCP need more than 8 days Avri >?? Ray Fassett - RySG:Anne-perhaps can cite the rationale as the checks balances that exist in procedures for the chair to always act neutral >?? Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but overriding a deferral may not be seen as "neutral". >?? Ray Fassett - RySG:in that situation, there are procedures for others to bring that complaint, I believe >?? Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but do we really want to put the GNSO Chair in that position in relation to complaints? >?? avri:i disagree with coffying what the chair can and can't do. >?? avri:coffying - codifying. >?? Ron A:@ Anne: we are only giving recommendations back to council at teh SCI >?? Ron A:SCI recommendations >?? avri:each chair gets to interpret on her own. >?? Ron A:Let the Chair's authority be challenged by test of the principle >?? avri:and if she is deemd to have done wrong by the g-council, she can be removed or not re-elected.? Otherwise we will need 10 volumes of g-council rules. >?? Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with ron and avri >?? Ron A:@ J - fully agree with your summation >?? avri:The working on this goes too far for me.? I do not think we should be offereing specific alternatives. >?? Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with j scott >?? Ron A:The reasoning doesn't havet to go to far into the weeds >?? Anne Aikman-Scalese:J. Scott, Are you saying the deferral? practice itself is discretionary with the Chair so the denial of a deferral is also discretionary? >?? J. Scott Evans:Anne:? Yes, picking up on Avri's point, the deferral practice is courtesy that has historically been extended at the discretion of the Chair. >?? J. Scott Evans:And that there shoujld be no assumption that that disrection must be exercised in all cases. >?? Ron A:Good bye all >?? J. Scott Evans:or extended I should say >?? Ray Fassett - RySG:thanks Wolf >?? Wolf Knoben:Thanks all > > From: "KnobenW at telekom.de" > Date: Thursday 6 September 2012 05:53 > To: Marika Konings > Subject: SCI > > Hi Marika, >? > Could you please provide us with the chat of the last SCI meeting? >? > Thanks and > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >? >? >? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marika.konings at icann.org Thu Sep 13 11:48:19 2012 From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 04:48:19 -0700 Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI In-Reply-To: <1347536357.12444.YahooMailNeo@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Apologies, yes, you are right, this is from the GNSO WG Guidelines and applies to GNSO WG Chairs. I checked the GNSO Operating Procedures but could not find anything similar that applies to the GNSO Council Chair. Best regards, Marika From: "J. Scott Evans" > Reply-To: "J. Scott Evans" > Date: Thursday 13 September 2012 13:39 To: Marika Konings >, "KnobenW at telekom.de" >, Avri Doria >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Is this provision applicable to the GNSO Chair? j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com ________________________________ From: Marika Konings > To: J. Scott Evans >; "KnobenW at telekom.de" >; "avri at acm.org" >; "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 4:03 AM Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Section 3.7 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines states (see specifically underlined sentence): '3.7 Appeal Process Any WG member that believes that his/her contributions are being systematically ignored or discounted or wants to appeal a decision of the WG or CO should first discuss the circumstances with the WG Chair. In the event that the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily, the WG member should request an opportunity to discuss the situation with the Chair of the Chartering Organization or their designated representative. In addition, if any member of the WG is of the opinion that someone is not performing their role according to the criteria outlined in Section 2.2 of this document, the same appeals process may be invoked'. With best regards, Marika From: "J. Scott Evans" > Reply-To: "J. Scott Evans" > Date: Thursday 13 September 2012 12:26 To: Marika Konings >, "KnobenW at telekom.de" >, Avri Doria >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI We may also want to cite the provisions that deal with how to deal with a complaint about the Chair's performance. Are there any such provisions? J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com ________________________________ From: Marika Konings > To: "KnobenW at telekom.de" >; "avri at acm.org" >; "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 3:21 AM Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI You may want to reference section 6.1.3 Purpose, Importance, and Expectations of the Chair of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines which includes amongst others 'The Chair is expected to assume a neutral role, refrain from promoting a specific agenda, and ensure fair treatment of all opinions and objectivity in identifying areas of agreement'. With best regards, Marika From: "KnobenW at telekom.de" > Date: Wednesday 12 September 2012 23:05 To: Avri Doria >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Could then the following amendment cover your point, Avri? 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. 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. To be excluded from this courtesy are cases on PDP votes, where the deferral is governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is procedurally defined and no longer a chair courtesy. 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. . . . In addition, could someone from staff please assist in referencing the provisos for a neutral chair position? Thanks and best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche 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: Montag, 10. September 2012 17:44 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Hi, In general I am ok, but we need to differentiate for where the deferral, on PDP votes, is governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is procedurally defined and no longer a chair courtesy. http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/gnso-pdp-manual-04nov11-en.pdf For example on initiation and council deliberation. avri On 7 Sep 2012, at 19:05, J. Scott Evans wrote: > Dear All: > > My proposal was for us to simply state our decision and the explain our rationale for the decision to the GNSO. Here is some proposed text: > > 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. 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 situat! ion that may occur with regard to this informal practice. . . . > > We should probably add some language about the neutral position of the GNSO Chair and reference the provision that currently exist for dealing with a perception that the Chair is not acting in a neutral manner. I just didn't have all those references handy, but I want to get this out to the list in time for everyone to consider before the next call. > > J. Scott > > j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com > > > From: "KnobenW at telekom.de" > > To: marika.konings at icann.org > Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:35 AM > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: SCI > > Thanks Marika, I just share it with the team. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. September 2012 14:34 > An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich > Betreff: Re: SCI > > Hi Wolf, > > Please see the transcript below. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > Julie Hedlund:Hi Marika I just > Julie Hedlund:joined > Marika Konings:Hi Julie > Marika Konings:Analysis is up now. > avri:The opinion that says Avri can be marked as NCSG. > J. Scott Evans:I think there has already been an issue, the problem was there was no formal process for considering the issue > Ron A:@ Avri: ltd to one to ensure no stonewalling > Ron A:BC supports status quo > Ron A:Agree with argument; but safeguard the principle > Ron A:My point Avri! > J. Scott Evans:If we leave it as is, then I think we need be very specific in our reasoning by pointing out that we believe that the Chair has the discretion to deny. That needs to be clearly ennunciated. > Ron A:What happens if the chair is biased for or against? > Ron A:bias by way of affiliation > J. Scott Evans:Good question Anne. > J. Scott Evans:I thought Stephane clearly stated that he could NOT deny request because he had no process for doing so. Hence, theis issue coming to the SCIU > avri:Except in PDPD's where it has been enshrined, it is just a priactice and practice belongs to the chair. > J. Scott Evans:SCI > avri:PDP's not PDPD's > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Chair cannot choose without authority to do so in governance documents, I think. > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Principle should not depend on which particular individual holds the position of Chair of the GNSO. Authority to override a deferral should be clear if it is needed. > J. Scott Evans:If you want to keep it as is, I think that we need to clearly state that the Chair has discretion to deny or to put to a vote. > Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with J Scott > J. Scott Evans:In other words, clearly state that the request does not HAVE to be automatically granted > Ron A:@ J +1 > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Agree with J. Scott and Ray but we should cite to the basis for this opinion by SCI. > Ron A:8 days for larger institutions that make up the BC or ISCP need more than 8 days Avri > Ray Fassett - RySG:Anne-perhaps can cite the rationale as the checks balances that exist in procedures for the chair to always act neutral > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but overriding a deferral may not be seen as "neutral". > Ray Fassett - RySG:in that situation, there are procedures for others to bring that complaint, I believe > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but do we really want to put the GNSO Chair in that position in relation to complaints? > avri:i disagree with coffying what the chair can and can't do. > avri:coffying - codifying. > Ron A:@ Anne: we are only giving recommendations back to council at teh SCI > Ron A:SCI recommendations > avri:each chair gets to interpret on her own. > Ron A:Let the Chair's authority be challenged by test of the principle > avri:and if she is deemd to have done wrong by the g-council, she can be removed or not re-elected. Otherwise we will need 10 volumes of g-council rules. > Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with ron and avri > Ron A:@ J - fully agree with your summation > avri:The working on this goes too far for me. I do not think we should be offereing specific alternatives. > Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with j scott > Ron A:The reasoning doesn't havet to go to far into the weeds > Anne Aikman-Scalese:J. Scott, Are you saying the deferral practice itself is discretionary with the Chair so the denial of a deferral is also discretionary? > J. Scott Evans:Anne: Yes, picking up on Avri's point, the deferral practice is courtesy that has historically been extended at the discretion of the Chair. > J. Scott Evans:And that there shoujld be no assumption that that disrection must be exercised in all cases. > Ron A:Good bye all > J. Scott Evans:or extended I should say > Ray Fassett - RySG:thanks Wolf > Wolf Knoben:Thanks all > > From: "KnobenW at telekom.de" > > Date: Thursday 6 September 2012 05:53 > To: Marika Konings > > Subject: SCI > > Hi Marika, > > Could you please provide us with the chat of the last SCI meeting? > > Thanks and > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ray at goto.jobs Thu Sep 13 14:02:28 2012 From: ray at goto.jobs (Ray Fassett) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 10:02:28 -0400 Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI In-Reply-To: References: <1347536357.12444.YahooMailNeo@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <073801cd91b8$695069a0$3bf13ce0$@goto.jobs> I certainly recall in the GCOT WG the discussion of Chair and Vice Chair accountability particularly to neutrality. But I have to agree, I do not see such language referenced in the Operating Procedures. I do see this under 4.5.1: Specific Councilor obligations include periodically reviewing the performance of the Chair and Vice-Chairs. Which is not of much assistance if there is nothing even generally that speaks to what the performance of the Chair and Vice-Chair is expected to be. Avri and Ron, how did you let this happen? J Ray 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 13, 2012 7:48 AM To: J. Scott Evans; KnobenW at telekom.de; avri at acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Apologies, yes, you are right, this is from the GNSO WG Guidelines and applies to GNSO WG Chairs. I checked the GNSO Operating Procedures but could not find anything similar that applies to the GNSO Council Chair. Best regards, Marika From: "J. Scott Evans" Reply-To: "J. Scott Evans" Date: Thursday 13 September 2012 13:39 To: Marika Konings , "KnobenW at telekom.de" , Avri Doria , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Is this provision applicable to the GNSO Chair? j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com _____ From: Marika Konings To: J. Scott Evans ; "KnobenW at telekom.de" ; "avri at acm.org" ; "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 4:03 AM Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Section 3.7 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines states (see specifically underlined sentence): '3.7 Appeal Process Any WG member that believes that his/her contributions are being systematically ignored or discounted or wants to appeal a decision of the WG or CO should first discuss the circumstances with the WG Chair. In the event that the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily, the WG member should request an opportunity to discuss the situation with the Chair of the Chartering Organization or their designated representative. In addition, if any member of the WG is of the opinion that someone is not performing their role according to the criteria outlined in Section 2.2 of this document, the same appeals process may be invoked'. With best regards, Marika From: "J. Scott Evans" Reply-To: "J. Scott Evans" Date: Thursday 13 September 2012 12:26 To: Marika Konings , "KnobenW at telekom.de" , Avri Doria , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI We may also want to cite the provisions that deal with how to deal with a complaint about the Chair's performance. Are there any such provisions? J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com _____ From: Marika Konings To: "KnobenW at telekom.de" ; "avri at acm.org" ; "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 3:21 AM Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI You may want to reference section 6.1.3 Purpose, Importance, and Expectations of the Chair of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines which includes amongst others 'The Chair is expected to assume a neutral role, refrain from promoting a specific agenda, and ensure fair treatment of all opinions and objectivity in identifying areas of agreement'. With best regards, Marika From: "KnobenW at telekom.de" Date: Wednesday 12 September 2012 23:05 To: Avri Doria , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Could then the following amendment cover your point, Avri? 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. 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. To be excluded from this courtesy are cases on PDP votes, where the deferral is governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is procedurally defined and no longer a chair courtesy. 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. . . . In addition, could someone from staff please assist in referencing the provisos for a neutral chair position? Thanks and best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche 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: Montag, 10. September 2012 17:44 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Hi, In general I am ok, but we need to differentiate for where the deferral, on PDP votes, is governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is procedurally defined and no longer a chair courtesy. http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/gnso-pdp-manual-04nov11-en.pdf For example on initiation and council deliberation. avri On 7 Sep 2012, at 19:05, J. Scott Evans wrote: > Dear All: > > My proposal was for us to simply state our decision and the explain our rationale for the decision to the GNSO. Here is some proposed text: > > 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. 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 situat! ion that may occur with regard to this informal practice. . . . > > We should probably add some language about the neutral position of the GNSO Chair and reference the provision that currently exist for dealing with a perception that the Chair is not acting in a neutral manner. I just didn't have all those references handy, but I want to get this out to the list in time for everyone to consider before the next call. > > J. Scott > > j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans at yahoo.com > > > From: "KnobenW at telekom.de" > To: marika.konings at icann.org > Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:35 AM > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: SCI > > Thanks Marika, I just share it with the team. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. September 2012 14:34 > An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich > Betreff: Re: SCI > > Hi Wolf, > > Please see the transcript below. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > Julie Hedlund:Hi Marika I just > Julie Hedlund:joined > Marika Konings:Hi Julie > Marika Konings:Analysis is up now. > avri:The opinion that says Avri can be marked as NCSG. > J. Scott Evans:I think there has already been an issue, the problem was there was no formal process for considering the issue > Ron A:@ Avri: ltd to one to ensure no stonewalling > Ron A:BC supports status quo > Ron A:Agree with argument; but safeguard the principle > Ron A:My point Avri! > J. Scott Evans:If we leave it as is, then I think we need be very specific in our reasoning by pointing out that we believe that the Chair has the discretion to deny. That needs to be clearly ennunciated. > Ron A:What happens if the chair is biased for or against? > Ron A:bias by way of affiliation > J. Scott Evans:Good question Anne. > J. Scott Evans:I thought Stephane clearly stated that he could NOT deny request because he had no process for doing so. Hence, theis issue coming to the SCIU > avri:Except in PDPD's where it has been enshrined, it is just a priactice and practice belongs to the chair. > J. Scott Evans:SCI > avri:PDP's not PDPD's > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Chair cannot choose without authority to do so in governance documents, I think. > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Principle should not depend on which particular individual holds the position of Chair of the GNSO. Authority to override a deferral should be clear if it is needed. > J. Scott Evans:If you want to keep it as is, I think that we need to clearly state that the Chair has discretion to deny or to put to a vote. > Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with J Scott > J. Scott Evans:In other words, clearly state that the request does not HAVE to be automatically granted > Ron A:@ J +1 > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Agree with J. Scott and Ray but we should cite to the basis for this opinion by SCI. > Ron A:8 days for larger institutions that make up the BC or ISCP need more than 8 days Avri > Ray Fassett - RySG:Anne-perhaps can cite the rationale as the checks balances that exist in procedures for the chair to always act neutral > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but overriding a deferral may not be seen as "neutral". > Ray Fassett - RySG:in that situation, there are procedures for others to bring that complaint, I believe > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but do we really want to put the GNSO Chair in that position in relation to complaints? > avri:i disagree with coffying what the chair can and can't do. > avri:coffying - codifying. > Ron A:@ Anne: we are only giving recommendations back to council at teh SCI > Ron A:SCI recommendations > avri:each chair gets to interpret on her own. > Ron A:Let the Chair's authority be challenged by test of the principle > avri:and if she is deemd to have done wrong by the g-council, she can be removed or not re-elected. Otherwise we will need 10 volumes of g-council rules. > Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with ron and avri > Ron A:@ J - fully agree with your summation > avri:The working on this goes too far for me. I do not think we should be offereing specific alternatives. > Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with j scott > Ron A:The reasoning doesn't havet to go to far into the weeds > Anne Aikman-Scalese:J. Scott, Are you saying the deferral practice itself is discretionary with the Chair so the denial of a deferral is also discretionary? > J. Scott Evans:Anne: Yes, picking up on Avri's point, the deferral practice is courtesy that has historically been extended at the discretion of the Chair. > J. Scott Evans:And that there shoujld be no assumption that that disrection must be exercised in all cases. > Ron A:Good bye all > J. Scott Evans:or extended I should say > Ray Fassett - RySG:thanks Wolf > Wolf Knoben:Thanks all > > From: "KnobenW at telekom.de" > Date: Thursday 6 September 2012 05:53 > To: Marika Konings > Subject: SCI > > Hi Marika, > > Could you please provide us with the chat of the last SCI meeting? > > Thanks and > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Thu Sep 13 21:22:13 2012 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 14:22:13 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Mp3 and attendance: Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation 13 September 2012 Message-ID: Dear All, The next Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting will take place on 27th September 2012 at 19:00 UTC. Please find the Mp3 recording from the SCI call on Thursday, 13 September 2012 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-201213-en.mp3 on page Transcript and Mp3 recorded will be posted shortly on: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#sep Attendees Avri Doria - Non Commercial SG - Primary Ray Fassett - Registry Stakeholder Group - Primary Ron Andruff - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Primary Wolf-Ulrich Knoben - ISPCP - Primary James Bladel - Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) - Alternate Angie Graves - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Alternate Apology: Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC Alternate Alain Berranger - NPOC - Primary Staff: Julie Hedlund Marika Konings Nathalie Peregrine Please let me know if your name has been left off the list. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie GNSO Secretariat gnso-secs at icann.org AC Chat transcript 13 September 2012 Ron A:Greetings all. Bladel:Difficult to hear Avri. Nathalie Peregrine:Background noise is from Ron's line. Ron A:Thanks, Avri. Better now. Ron A:Yes we should have one last look Ron A:no motion needed Bladel:I'm sorry, I have a conflict and need to drop. Marika Konings:"Such requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council' Ron A:@ Avri: that works for me - a 'chartered' body Ron A:Yes, that's it Chair Ron A:Yes, we should define the term chartered body Marika Konings:SO/AC descriptions are in the Bylaws, but I don't know if that is considered their 'charter'? Ron A:all working groups should be included - but under GNSO charter, correct? Ron A:@ Avri: agreed Ron A:Thanks all! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Fri Sep 14 00:21:17 2012 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 00:21:17 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Mp3 and attendance: Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation 13 September 2012 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9553F8CA2@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Nathanlie, I was not able to access the mp3 at the first link. Anne [cid:328562000 at 14092012-1395]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 Nathalie Peregrine Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 2:22 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Mp3 and attendance: Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation 13 September 2012 Dear All, The next Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting will take place on 27th September 2012 at 19:00 UTC. Please find the Mp3 recording from the SCI call on Thursday, 13 September 2012 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-201213-en.mp3 on page Transcript and Mp3 recorded will be posted shortly on: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#sep Attendees Avri Doria ? Non Commercial SG ? Primary Ray Fassett - Registry Stakeholder Group - Primary Ron Andruff - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Primary Wolf-Ulrich Knoben ? ISPCP ? Primary James Bladel - Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) - Alternate Angie Graves - Commercial and Business Users Constituency ? Alternate Apology: Anne Aikman-Scalese ? IPC Alternate Alain Berranger ? NPOC - Primary Staff: Julie Hedlund Marika Konings Nathalie Peregrine Please let me know if your name has been left off the list. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie GNSO Secretariat gnso-secs at icann.org AC Chat transcript 13 September 2012 Ron A:Greetings all. Bladel:Difficult to hear Avri. Nathalie Peregrine:Background noise is from Ron's line. Ron A:Thanks, Avri. Better now. Ron A:Yes we should have one last look Ron A:no motion needed Bladel:I'm sorry, I have a conflict and need to drop. Marika Konings:"Such requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council' Ron A:@ Avri: that works for me - a 'chartered' body Ron A:Yes, that's it Chair Ron A:Yes, we should define the term chartered body Marika Konings:SO/AC descriptions are in the Bylaws, but I don't know if that is considered their 'charter'? Ron A:all working groups should be included - but under GNSO charter, correct? Ron A:@ Avri: agreed Ron A:Thanks all! ________________________________ 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 nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Fri Sep 14 07:19:52 2012 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 00:19:52 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Mp3 and attendance: Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation 13 September 2012 Message-ID: Dear All, The next Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting will take place on 27th September 2012 at 19:00 UTC. Please find the Mp3 recording from the SCI call on Thursday, 13 September 2012 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20120913-en.mp3 on page Transcript and Mp3 recorded will be posted shortly on: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#sep Attendees Avri Doria - Non Commercial SG - Primary Ray Fassett - Registry Stakeholder Group - Primary Ron Andruff - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Primary Wolf-Ulrich Knoben - ISPCP - Primary James Bladel - Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) - Alternate Angie Graves - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Alternate Apology: Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC Alternate Alain Berranger - NPOC - Primary Staff: Julie Hedlund Marika Konings Nathalie Peregrine Please let me know if your name has been left off the list. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie GNSO Secretariat gnso-secs at icann.org AC Chat transcript 13 September 2012 Ron A:Greetings all. Bladel:Difficult to hear Avri. Nathalie Peregrine:Background noise is from Ron's line. Ron A:Thanks, Avri. Better now. Ron A:Yes we should have one last look Ron A:no motion needed Bladel:I'm sorry, I have a conflict and need to drop. Marika Konings:"Such requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council' Ron A:@ Avri: that works for me - a 'chartered' body Ron A:Yes, that's it Chair Ron A:Yes, we should define the term chartered body Marika Konings:SO/AC descriptions are in the Bylaws, but I don't know if that is considered their 'charter'? Ron A:all working groups should be included - but under GNSO charter, correct? Ron A:@ Avri: agreed Ron A:Thanks all! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Fri Sep 14 07:22:25 2012 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 00:22:25 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Mp3 and attendance: Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation 13 September 2012 In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9553F8CA2@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9553F8CA2@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Dear Anne, The link was cropped, my apologies. I have sent out the update attendance and mp3 email. In the meantime, please find the correct link here: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20120913-en.mp3 The transcript will be posted as soon as I receive it. Kindest regards, Nathalie From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com] Sent: vendredi 14 septembre 2012 02:21 To: Nathalie Peregrine; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org Subject: RE: Mp3 and attendance: Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation 13 September 2012 Nathanlie, I was not able to access the mp3 at the first link. Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01CD925A.73E43520]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 Nathalie Peregrine Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 2:22 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Mp3 and attendance: Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation 13 September 2012 Dear All, The next Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting will take place on 27th September 2012 at 19:00 UTC. Please find the Mp3 recording from the SCI call on Thursday, 13 September 2012 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-201213-en.mp3 on page Transcript and Mp3 recorded will be posted shortly on: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#sep Attendees Avri Doria ? Non Commercial SG ? Primary Ray Fassett - Registry Stakeholder Group - Primary Ron Andruff - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Primary Wolf-Ulrich Knoben ? ISPCP ? Primary James Bladel - Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) - Alternate Angie Graves - Commercial and Business Users Constituency ? Alternate Apology: Anne Aikman-Scalese ? IPC Alternate Alain Berranger ? NPOC - Primary Staff: Julie Hedlund Marika Konings Nathalie Peregrine Please let me know if your name has been left off the list. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie GNSO Secretariat gnso-secs at icann.org AC Chat transcript 13 September 2012 Ron A:Greetings all. Bladel:Difficult to hear Avri. Nathalie Peregrine:Background noise is from Ron's line. Ron A:Thanks, Avri. Better now. Ron A:Yes we should have one last look Ron A:no motion needed Bladel:I'm sorry, I have a conflict and need to drop. Marika Konings:"Such requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council' Ron A:@ Avri: that works for me - a 'chartered' body Ron A:Yes, that's it Chair Ron A:Yes, we should define the term chartered body Marika Konings:SO/AC descriptions are in the Bylaws, but I don't know if that is considered their 'charter'? Ron A:all working groups should be included - but under GNSO charter, correct? Ron A:@ Avri: agreed Ron A:Thanks all! ________________________________ 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 marika.konings at icann.org Wed Sep 19 14:37:12 2012 From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 07:37:12 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For review - proposed language to address suspending a PDP Message-ID: Dear All, As discussed during the last meeting, please find below the proposed modifications (in bold) to the PDP Manual to address suspension of a PDP. As with any changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures of which the PDP Manual is part, once approved by the SCI, these would need to be put out for public comment for a minimum of 21 days followed by GNSO Council approval. If you have any further comments / edits, please share these with the mailing list. With best regards, Marika =============== 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] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Thu Sep 20 21:21:49 2012 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 14:21:49 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Meeting Invitation / Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting/ Thursday 27 September at 1900 UTC Message-ID: Dear All, The Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting teleconference is scheduled on Thursday 27 September 2012 at 1900 UTC. 12:00 PDT, 15:00 EDT, 20:00 London, 21:00 CET For other places see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=SCI+Meeting&iso=20120927T19 Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/standcommdraft/ Dial-in details are below. If you require a dial-out, please email me your preferred contact number. Thank you Kind regards Nathalie ____________________________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: SCI For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. ____________________________________________________________________________ Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA* 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA 000-800-852-1268 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 *Access to your conference call will be either of the numbers listed, dependent on the participants' local telecom provider. Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. ---------------------------- Nathalie Peregrine GNSO Secretariat Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marika.konings at icann.org Mon Sep 24 10:32:13 2012 From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 03:32:13 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For your review - raising an issue options Message-ID: Dear All, In relation to the agenda item 'Raising an issue - Has this been sufficiently clarified', 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. With best regards, Marika -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Tue Sep 25 20:02:09 2012 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:02:09 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER: Meeting Invitation / Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting/ Thursday 27 September at 1900 UTC Message-ID: Dear All, The Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting teleconference is scheduled on Thursday 27 September 2012 at 1900 UTC. 12:00 PDT, 15:00 EDT, 20:00 London, 21:00 CET For other places see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=SCI+Meeting&iso=20120927T19 Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/standcommdraft/ Dial-in details are below. If you require a dial-out, please email me your preferred contact number. Thank you Kind regards Nathalie ____________________________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: SCI For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. ____________________________________________________________________________ Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA* 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA 000-800-852-1268 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 *Access to your conference call will be either of the numbers listed, dependent on the participants' local telecom provider. Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. ---------------------------- Nathalie Peregrine GNSO Secretariat Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Tue Sep 25 23:45:18 2012 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 19:45:18 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For your review - raising an issue options In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <86C4F93015BB44C5A97CA12728BEAC7F@ron> Dear all, While I was on the recent call when this matter was discussed, what was not present at the time was the knowledge that significant changes (to the SCI Charter with GNSO Council approval) would have to occur. Therefore, I would like to withdraw my verbal support on the call for changes to 'Raising an Issue'. By way of this mail, I am placing my support behind #1 below, i.e. Maintain the status quo. 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 Marika Konings Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 6:32 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For your review - raising an issue options Dear All, In relation to the agenda item 'Raising an issue - Has this been sufficiently clarified', 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. With best regards, Marika -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From KnobenW at telekom.de Wed Sep 26 22:24:23 2012 From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 00:24:23 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting Message-ID: All: Please find the following agenda for the call tomorrow: 1. Roll call 2. Statement of Interests 3. Approval of the agenda 4. Deferral of Motions 5. Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP (see proposed language by Marika) 7. Raising an issue (see options) 8. Status update on Working Group survey 9. AOB Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marika.konings at icann.org Thu Sep 27 07:59:05 2012 From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 00:59:05 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For your review - proposed response deferral of motions Message-ID: 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From KnobenW at telekom.de Thu Sep 27 12:48:18 2012 From: KnobenW at telekom.de (KnobenW at telekom.de) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:48:18 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: SCI meeting Message-ID: All, due to unexpected circumstances I'll not be able to make the SCI call today. Also for Avri as co-chair the time is inconvenient, and she has already filed her apologies. My suggestion is that we "defer" to Toronto. That may also give to better prepare on the basis of the document updates just came in. In addidtion we could start thinking about - new items: eg council chair election procedure seems to be an urgent an interesting one, following from the experience we've just gaind with the nomination in particular of NCAs - election of an SCI chair; we're existing 2 ys already Sorry for the short notice, and I hope to see you all safe in Toronto. Wolf-Ulrich _____________________________________________ Von: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Gesendet: Donnerstag, 27. September 2012 00:24 An: 'gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org' Betreff: SCI meeting All: Please find the following agenda for the call tomorrow: 1. Roll call 2. Statement of Interests 3. Approval of the agenda 4. Deferral of Motions 5. Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP (see proposed language by Marika) 7. Raising an issue (see options) 8. Status update on Working Group survey 9. AOB Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com Thu Sep 27 12:59:36 2012 From: jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com (Jonathan Robinson) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 13:59:36 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: SCI meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00cc01cd9caf$f34be6a0$d9e3b3e0$@ipracon.com> Hi Wolf-Ulrich, I am ok with that. Yes, see you in Toronto. Jonathan 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: 27 September 2012 13:48 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: SCI meeting All, due to unexpected circumstances I'll not be able to make the SCI call today. Also for Avri as co-chair the time is inconvenient, and she has already filed her apologies. My suggestion is that we "defer" to Toronto. That may also give to better prepare on the basis of the document updates just came in. In addidtion we could start thinking about - new items: eg council chair election procedure seems to be an urgent an interesting one, following from the experience we've just gaind with the nomination in particular of NCAs - election of an SCI chair; we're existing 2 ys already Sorry for the short notice, and I hope to see you all safe in Toronto. Wolf-Ulrich _____________________________________________ Von: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Gesendet: Donnerstag, 27. September 2012 00:24 An: 'gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org' Betreff: SCI meeting All: Please find the following agenda for the call tomorrow: 1. Roll call 2. Statement of Interests 3. Approval of the agenda 4. Deferral of Motions 5. Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP (see proposed language by Marika) 7. Raising an issue (see options) 8. Status update on Working Group survey 9. AOB Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Thu Sep 27 13:10:03 2012 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 06:10:03 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] CALL CANCELLATION Meeting Invitation / Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting/ Thursday 27 September at 1900 UTC Message-ID: Dear All, As per Wolf-Ulrich's email, the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting teleconference scheduled for Thursday 27 September 2012 at 1900 UTC has now been CANCELLED. 12:00 PDT, 15:00 EDT, 20:00 London, 21:00 CET For other places see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=SCI+Meeting&iso=20120927T19 Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/standcommdraft/ Dial-in details are below. If you require a dial-out, please email me your preferred contact number. Thank you Kind regards Nathalie ____________________________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: SCI For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. ____________________________________________________________________________ Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA* 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA 000-800-852-1268 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 *Access to your conference call will be either of the numbers listed, dependent on the participants' local telecom provider. Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. ---------------------------- Nathalie Peregrine GNSO Secretariat Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Thu Sep 27 15:17:41 2012 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 15:17:41 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: For your review - proposed response deferral of motions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95541682B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> 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:363371415 at 27092012-3235]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 ray at goto.jobs Thu Sep 27 15:58:51 2012 From: ray at goto.jobs (Ray Fassett) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 11:58:51 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: For your review - proposed response deferral of motions In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95541682B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD95541682B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <062701cd9cc8$fd1fe2d0$f75fa870$@goto.jobs> 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: not available URL: