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

Fri Sep 7 23:05:03 UTC 2012

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" <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" <KnobenW at telekom.de>
>Date: Thursday 6 September 2012  05:53
>To: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
>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: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20120907/22987b58/attachment.html>