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

Thu Sep 13 10:26:12 UTC 2012

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 <marika.konings at icann.org>
To: "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> 
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" <KnobenW at telekom.de>
Date:  Wednesday 12 September 2012 23:05
To:  Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
Subject:  AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI

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

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria
Gesendet: 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" <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/20120913/5cb77d92/attachment.html>